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

[LittleSoldier]

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.

It matters not one iota that they believe it is “WRONG” because they are still matters of discipline, not dogma or doctrine.

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.

Good for you.

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.

And those references should have been placed in the post where you presented your assertions. One shouldn’t have to ask you for references. When you make comments such as you did, it is considered common courtesy and debate decorum to present links or other appropriate citations or references.

I’ll try to check out the references you have given meand I appreciate the trouble you went to to post them, but I have a hunch you have added your own interpretation to them. Why is is “clear that the Council formed a ‘unity’ that only created division within the Church”? Is this your interpretation? There are uses of language that differ over time. Are these books approved by the Church? Do they contain an imprimatur? Your first link leads to a Protestant site and I can’t even access Catholic encyclicals without becoming a member. That raises a red flag. Another red flag is raised by an ad informing me I can become a minister online. Your second link leads to a letter written by Constantine when he was emperor. He was not the Pope and did not make any ex cathedra statements. He couldn’t. Still, I will check your references. Thank you.

But one thing I know for sure, without checking any reference other than the Bible is the following:

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
[Matthew 16:17-19 NAB]

The Church founded by the Christ upon Peter is the Catholic Church. It is the Church with the keys to the kingdom of heaven and has the power to bind and loose in both heaven and on earth.

The gates of hell have never prevailed against the Catholic Church, they are not prevailing against her now, and they never will. This is what Jesus said and I believe Him. What HE says is INFALLIBLE.

 

[Metamorphoo]

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.

With regard to the Quartodeciman issue, there was no doctrinal issue involved at all. It was merely a difference in custom as to when Christ’s passion/resurrection would be commemorated. There was no purpose for the Council of Nicea to force all Christians to observe Christ’s resurrection outside of its historical and biblical context: the Jewish Passover/Unleavened Bread festival. If either party had the stronger case for when the observance of Christ’s passion/resurrection ought to be held, it was undoubtedly the Quartodecimans; yet the Quartodecimans were the ones regarded as deviant.

I am not saying that ALL orthodox doctrines are the forcing of outward conformity; but I am stating that in too many instances, “majoring on the minors”–being dogmatic about issues that are not critical to the Christian faith–has been the source of splits within Christendom. As many on this board have stated, it is an obvious problem within Protestantism. Having said that, however, the “unity” of the Body of Christ is not going to come about by forced conformity either–which is what I think the RCC has historically been prone to doing, erring at the opposite end.

In spite of the multitude of Protestant denominations, in many cases, Protestants often regard the doctrinal differences between their denominations as being relatively minor and not an obstacle to fellowship.

 

[Metamorphoo]

And those references should have been placed in the post where you presented your assertions. One shouldn’t have to ask you for references. When you make comments such as you did, it is considered common courtesy and debate decorum to present links or other appropriate citations or references.

My apologies. I will try to remember this the next time.

I’ll try to check out the references you have given me and I appreciate the trouble you went to to post them, but I have a hunch you have added your own interpretation to them. Why is is “clear that the Council formed a ‘unity’ that only created division within the Church”? Is this your interpretation? There are uses of language that differ over time. Are these books approved by the Church? Do they contain an imprimatur?

Eusebius is regarded as “the father of Church history” by Catholics and other Christians alike. If you don’t like the sites I took you to, you can look for others on the Internet that may be more to your liking. Or you can read them in a hard copy format. At least you know where to look in his writings. CCEL is a good resource for a lot of patristic writings, which is the reason that I used that particular site for Ecclesiastical History. The Medieval Sourcebook is maintained on Fordham University’s website. The school is a Catholic university. The Medieval Sourcebook is an excellent resource for many different types of historical documents, not just Church-related ones.

As to my conclusion, it is my own–but it is deduced from what I read from Eusebius’s works, and well as to other historical summaries which detail the disputes over the dating of the celebration of Christ’s resurrection. It is a historical fact that the Quartodeciman Controversy created a lot of conflict within Christendom–and the Council of Nicea’s decree not only agitated Quartodecimans, but the new dating decided upon by the Council was not to the liking of some of the non-Quartodecimans either. So the Council’s decree compounded the problem, which lasted for quite some time afterward. Their efforts to obtain unity created further division within Christendom.

Your second link leads to a letter written by Constantine when he was emperor. He was not the Pope and did not make any ex cathedra statements.

Constantine was the one that pushed for the calling the Council in the first place. For whatever reason, he was the one–and apparently not the pope–who notified the bishops who were not at the Council of its decision on the issue. I never said that Constantine made any ex cathedra statements. But from what I understand of the Catholic Church, the decisions made by the Magisterium (in this case, at the ecumenical Council of Nicea) would have been regarded with the same infallibility (if a matter of faith or morality) as a papal ex cathedra statement. At least on a personal level, Constantine believed the Council’s decision to be God-ordained.

Constantine’s letter did state what the rationale behind the council’s decision was–and clearly, it was largely due to sentiments that Christians should have nothing in common with Judaism/Jews. In view of the well-documented animosity that existed between Jews and Christians (even among Christianity’s leading spiritual teachers) of that time and for a long time afterward, I think it unlikely that Constantine was fabricating or misled as to the Council’s thinking.

 

[Sherry_G]

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?

Going to an extreme to make a point… Claiming that scholars within the church having differing opinions created disunity or divisions is incorrect. Polycarp never left the church and started a new one. The thread is questioning whether other denominations acutally believe they have the one true church. These good Catholics may have had some differences of opinion, but the Church remained united and intact. In the end, it is our faith in Jesus Christ’s church that held us all together. Using the intellect can creates discord, but that is a human failing we all share. Pointing out disagreements over time makes not one iota of difference to the unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[Izdaari]

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?

Thanks

There is, IMHO, no One True Church that’s a visible church, with an earthly organization and hierarchy. The One True Church is the universal (“catholic” but with a small “c”) invisible church, and Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox who seek to follow Jesus Christ are members of it. Though I’m a member of a particular denomination, Assemblies of God, the universal invisible church is my allegiance.

Or, IOW, pretty much what gnuss said.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Perfect Pastor! Thanks for this.

 

[LittleSoldier]

My apologies. I will try to remember this the next time.

I’m sorry. I could have written that in a much more charitable manner.

Eusebius is regarded as “the father of Church history” by Catholics and other Christians alike. If you don’t like the sites I took you to, you can look for others on the Internet that may be more to your liking. Or you can read them in a hard copy format. At least you know where to look in his writings. CCEL is a good resource for a lot of patristic writings, which is the reason that I used that particular site for Ecclesiastical History. The Medieval Sourcebook is maintained on Fordham University’s website. The school is a Catholic university. The Medieval Sourcebook is an excellent resource for many different types of historical documents, not just Church-related ones.

As to my conclusion, it is my own–but it is deduced from what I read from Eusebius’s works, and well as to other historical summaries which detail the disputes over the dating of the celebration of Christ’s resurrection. It is a historical fact that the Quartodeciman Controversy created a lot of conflict within Christendom–and the Council of Nicea’s decree not only agitated Quartodecimans, but the new dating decided upon by the Council was not to the liking of some of the non-Quartodecimans either. So the Council’s decree compounded the problem, which lasted for quite some time afterward. Their efforts to obtain unity created further division within Christendom.

Constantine was the one that pushed for the calling the Council in the first place. For whatever reason, he was the one–and apparently not the pope–who notified the bishops who were not at the Council of its decision on the issue. I never said that Constantine made any ex cathedra statements. But from what I understand of the Catholic Church, the decisions made by the Magisterium (in this case, at the ecumenical Council of Nicea) would have been regarded with the same infallibility (if a matter of faith or morality) as a papal ex cathedra statement. At least on a personal level, Constantine believed the Council’s decision to be God-ordained.

Constantine’s letter did state what the rationale behind the council’s decision was–and clearly, it was largely due to sentiments that Christians should have nothing in common with Judaism/Jews. In view of the well-documented animosity that existed between Jews and Christians (even among Christianity’s leading spiritual teachers) of that time and for a long time afterward, I think it unlikely that Constantine was fabricating or misled as to the Council’s thinking.

I haven’t had time yet to check the references in detail. I know I won’t have access to the offline books. But I did read Constantine’s letter and I know I wasn’t there but I think you’re presenting its remarks about Judaism in a pejorative manner that may not have been its intent. It appears ambiguous to me. The Jews are the chosen people. I’ve always been taught to treat them with respect. Jesus was a Jew.

When I read the letter I get a different feeling. I understand that the date Easter was celebrated was (and is) very important. I think that possibly the letter is ambiguous. I don’t know what language it was written in originally - I assume Latin, but I’m not sure. I question the translation, but even as I read it in English (and of course it could be archaic English) I get the feeling that the Jewish people were not being scorned, but that as the Christ brought a new message of hope and redemption it is extremely important that Easter not be mixed up with Passover. Passover is OT; Easter is NT and the sacrifice and resurrection of the Christ is the most important event in human history. Passover pales in comparison. Passover didn’t open the gates of heaven; it kept the Jewish people safe. When Jesus was resurrected, His sacrifice was complete and the gates of heaven were opened; everyone in the world could now enter, even those who had already died.

I don’t think Passover and the celebration of the Resurrection should be celebrated at the same time yet they are in very close proximity in history. I know this because the Last Supper was at least partially a celebration of the Passover and it was that very night that Jesus was taken prisoner by Pilate. I don’t think it’s meant to be an insult to Jewish people, but we also have to remember that many Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Why the Church would want to separate the celebration of the Resurrection of the Christ with the Passover makes some sense to me, although I also wonder why, if both events occurred so close in history it would be necessary to do so because in doing so it sort of takes the Passover/Last Supper and tears them apart. Jesus did celebrate the Passover. If the Last Supper coincided with that, it’s part of Church history and I think perhaps the whole situation should have been handled differently. On the other hand, who am I to argue with the Magisterium? Or even you? I’m in nursery school here and you’re getting your Ph.D. :hypno:

This is a whole new area for me. I’m starting to find areas of my faith that I never new existed (mainly because I just never thought of them). Church history is brand new to me.

I think I’m going to have to start at the beginning here. This is all very new and confusing to me. Thank you for your help, especially with your suggestions of resources and your kindness. I again apologize for any uncharitable remarks I made. For some reason I’ve been in a really bad mood the past few days and I should have stayed away from the computer. But I tend to lurk and when I lurk I want to write something and I usually do and then wonder why I had to do that.

God bless!!

 

[Texasgringo70]

Going to an extreme to make a point… Claiming that scholars within the church having differing opinions created disunity or divisions is incorrect. Polycarp never left the church and started a new one.

Both Luther and Polycarp were scholars within the Church. So, if you are brow beat into submission like Polycarp you become irrelevant and if you leave like Luther you become a heretic. Not very good options.

The thread is questioning whether other denominations actually believe they have the one true church.

I think that was settled long ago.

These good Catholics may have had some differences of opinion, but the Church remained united and intact. In the end, it is our faith in Jesus Christ’s church that held us all together.

And that would be why the Church left so many denominations and Orthodox churches in its wake, because it is so good at being unified. Kicking out everyone who wouldn’t be beat into submission is a funny way to maintain unity.

Matt 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26"It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,27and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Interesting that the Church adopted the worlds leadership model for the sake of unity.

Using the intellect can creates discord, but that is a human failing we all share.

No, you didn’t just say that did you? So, in order to become a good Catholic you have to stop using your intellect. That would explain a lot of questions I have about various doctrines on the Church, but I thought it was I who was lacking in intellect. Good luck getting other Catholics on board with you on that one.

Pointing out disagreements over time makes not one iota of difference to the unity of the Catholic Church.

Obviously not to you. However, if you want to learn from the past and seek a more perfect unity a little review might be helpful. Or you can circle the wagons and stick your head in the sand for the sake of your non-intellectual unity. Not everything in the Catholic Church is peace and love, but there is peace and love. Just the same, not everything in the protestant churches is disorder and chaos, but there can be some disorder. This whole Pollyanna, everything is wonderful, shtick about the Catholic Church is getting a little old.

 

[LittleSoldier]

With regard to the Quartodeciman issue, there was no doctrinal issue involved at all. It was merely a difference in custom as to when Christ’s passion/resurrection would be commemorated. There was no purpose for the Council of Nicea to force all Christians to observe Christ’s resurrection outside of its historical and biblical context: the Jewish Passover/Unleavened Bread festival. If either party had the stronger case for when the observance of Christ’s passion/resurrection ought to be held, it was undoubtedly the Quartodecimans; yet the Quartodecimans were the ones regarded as deviant.

I am not saying that ALL orthodox doctrines are the forcing of outward conformity; but I am stating that in too many instances, “majoring on the minors”–being dogmatic about issues that are not critical to the Christian faith–has been the source of splits within Christendom. As many on this board have stated, it is an obvious problem within Protestantism. Having said that, however, the “unity” of the Body of Christ is not going to come about by forced conformity either–which is what I think the RCC has historically been prone to doing, erring at the opposite end.

In spite of the multitude of Protestant denominations, in many cases, Protestants often regard the doctrinal differences between their denominations as being relatively minor and not an obstacle to fellowship.

“Forced conformity”? Wow. And this is what you think the Catholic Church does - she tries to “force” people to “conform” with her views, even if they aren’t important because they really aren’t dogma or doctrine but little things of little consequence?

If the Catholic Church proclaims something as dogma or doctrine; if the Magisterium proclaims that something is Church teaching, it is extremely important. There are no little things of little consequence.

The Church was given this authority by Jesus Himself, when He founded His Church - the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The Church is united. She always has been and she always will be. Your last sentence intrigues me. You say “in many cases”, Protestants “often” regard the doctrinal differences as being “relatively” minor… (bolding is mine). This sentence leaves the whole issue completely open. You’ve stacked the deck in your favor. What I am reading is that some Protestants think that the doctrinal differences between the various and numerous Protestant churches are really not important. To some Protestants.

What about the other Protestants who believe there are very important doctrinal differences in the many Protestant churches?

The Catholic Church had held her ground and will continue to do so. The Protestant churches have broken away from the one True Church and have the supposed freedom to change doctrine. The Catholic Church will not change doctrine, only discipline. While Protestant churches bow to the will of their members, Catholics bow to the will of the Bride of Christ, and through her, to God Himself.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Both Luther and Polycarp were scholars within the Church. So, if you are brow beat into submission like Polycarp you become irrelevant and if you leave like Luther you become a heretic. Not very good options.

I think that was settled long ago.

And that would be why the Church left so many denominations and Orthodox churches in its wake, because it is so good at being unified. Kicking out everyone who wouldn’t be beat into submission is a funny way to maintain unity.

Matt 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26"It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,27and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Interesting that the Church adopted the worlds leadership model for the sake of unity.

No, you didn’t just say that did you? So, in order to become a good Catholic you have to stop using your intellect. That would explain a lot of questions I have about various doctrines on the Church, but I thought it was I who was lacking in intellect. Good luck getting other Catholics on board with you on that one.

Obviously not to you. However, if you want to learn from the past and seek a more perfect unity a little review might be helpful. Or you can circle the wagons and stick your head in the sand for the sake of your non-intellectual unity. Not everything in the Catholic Church is peace and love, but there is peace and love. Just the same, not everything in the protestant churches is disorder and chaos, but there can be some disorder. This whole Pollyanna, everything is wonderful, shtick about the Catholic Church is getting a little old.

I would like to point out that when you joined CAF you agreed to follow its rules. One of these rules is that, as this is a grouping of Catholic forums, you are to treat the Catholic Church with respect.

You are not doing that. Your remarks are extremely uncharitable and attack the Church. You are breaking a forum rule. Other non-Catholics in this thread (at least in the posts I’ve read) don’t seem to have a problem with getting their points across in a charitable manner.

Please discontinue this. It’s not nice. Please treat the Church with respect, as you agreed to do when you became a member.

 

[Dokimas]

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?

Thanks

The Bible teaches there are many members in God’s church. For me, that means there are many with various understanding; it also speaks of individuals not ‘churches’, that is denominations or the CC or non-denominational.

The Lord’s church is people NOT an organization, again IMO as I look at the Word of God.

 

[Nicea325]

With regard to the Quartodeciman issue, there was no doctrinal issue involved at all. It was merely a difference in custom as to when Christ’s passion/resurrection would be commemorated.

Yes…and?

There was no purpose for the Council of Nicea to force all Christians to observe Christ’s resurrection outside of its historical and biblical context: the Jewish Passover/Unleavened Bread festival.

There you go again the term: FORCE. Provide the evidence where the council “forced” Christians? Yeah but Jesus resurrected on Sunday and as Christians Christ was the fulfillent of the OT. As Christians do we need to circumcise boys?

If either party had the stronger case for when the observance of Christ’s passion/resurrection ought to be held, it was undoubtedly the Quartodecimans; yet the Quartodecimans were the ones regarded as deviant.

Based on entirely on what conclusive evidence?

I am not saying that ALL orthodox doctrines are the forcing of outward conformity; but I am stating that in too many instances, “majoring on the minors”–being dogmatic about issues that are not critical to the Christian faith–has been the source of splits within Christendom. As many on this board have stated, it is an obvious problem within Protestantism. Having said that, however, the “unity” of the Body of Christ is not going to come about by forced conformity either–which is what I think the RCC has historically been prone to doing, erring at the opposite end.

Really? So the canon of scripture,Trinity,Incarnation were being forced? What precisely is being forced? Doctrine/dogma or discipline? Either orthodoxy exists or we simply go off everyones own heterodxy?

In spite of the multitude of Protestant denominations, in many cases, Protestants often regard the doctrinal differences between their denominations as being relatively minor and not an obstacle to fellowship.

That can be said amongst any Christian church,sect,denomination,etc across the board.

 

[Texasgringo70]

I would like to point out that when you joined CAF you agreed to follow its rules. One of these rules is that, as this is a grouping of Catholic forums, you are to treat the Catholic Church with respect.

You are not doing that. Your remarks are extremely uncharitable and attack the Church. You are breaking a forum rule.

Please discontinue this. It’s not nice. Please treat the Church with respect.

You lost me. Obviously I am new here and new to understanding the Catholic Church, so I don’t know exactly where I went wrong. Please accept my apologies. I’m trying to be charitable, but I guess I failed. Help me out. Where did I cross the line?

I did get tired of hearing protestant denominations disrespected and might have reacted a little strongly. Also, some of my comments were a reaction to Sherry G. If it was the intellect subject that bothered you remember that was her idea, not mine. I was trying to be funny by saying that I thought it was my intellect that was causing my confusion. I should have been clear that I do not agree with her comment that the intellect can cause disunity, and I do not think it must be suspended for the sake of unity. I tried her tactic of using absurdity to illustrate my point and it didn’t work for me either.

 

[LittleSoldier]

You lost me. Obviously I am new here and new to understanding the Catholic Church, so I don’t know exactly where I went wrong. Please accept my apologies. I’m trying to be charitable, but I guess I failed. Help me out. Where did I cross the line?

I did get tired of hearing protestant denominations disrespected and might have reacted a little strongly. Also, some of my comments were a reaction to Sherry G. If it was the intellect subject that bothered you remember that was her idea, not mine. I was trying to be funny by saying that I thought it was my intellect that was causing my confusion. I should have been clear that I do not agree with her comment that the intellect can cause disunity, and I do not think it must be suspended for the sake of unity. I tried her tactic of using absurdity to illustrate my point and it didn’t work for me either.

It was some comments in past posts in this thread and also the following comments in the post I responded to:

Kicking out everyone who wouldn’t be beat into submission is a funny way to maintain unity.

and

Or you can circle the wagons and stick your head in the sand for the sake of your non-intellectual unity…This whole Pollyanna, everything is wonderful, shtick about the Catholic Church is getting a little old.

That’s when you crossed the line. Catholics here love the Church and we are defend her honor. The Church does not beat people into submission. And the Church is absolutely perfect because she was founded by Jesus.

There are sinners in every church - what better place is there for them? But the Church - the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. She is holy and virginal and perfect.

I’m sorry you were confused. I guess the best thing to do is to just make sure you don’t insult the Church or even appear to insult the Church. You can complain all you want; people do it all the time (obviously). It’s those ad hominems that are hurled against the Church that cause problems for me and for many other Catholics.

Thank you for your apology. I hope this clears it up. I should have realized you were new and not so sure about what is acceptable.

God bless!

 

[Texasgringo70]

It was some comments in past posts in this thread and also the following comments in the post I responded to:

OK, I got it now. Let me clarify and explain a little.

That’s when you crossed the line. Catholics here love the Church and we are defend her honor. The Church does not beat people into submission. And the Church is absolutely perfect because she was founded by Jesus.

There are sinners in every church - what better place is there for them? But the Church - the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. She is holy and virginal and perfect.

By “beat into submission” I did not mean physical beating, but a short version of the term “brow beating” that I used in the same post. If that doesn’t describe Polycarp’s experience I don’t what does. I seem to detect an intolerance of descent when I read some of the Church history. In a very mild form I am experiencing a similar version of this right here. I have a different opinion of the perfection of the Church than you do, but you whipped out the forum rules on me right away. In another thread I was told that Catholic belief is that the Church is not perfect, but its teaching is infallible. Are you saying that I misunderstood that statement?. To deny that that the Church has suffered from the abuses of some of its ministers is to deny the admissions of the Church itself. I don’t see how the Church’s ministers can commit abuses and still call the Church “perfect”.

Also, keep in mind that the protestant view of the Church is that it is the body of believers, not a building or an organization. Therefore, we might love the Church, but we are have nothing invested in the perpetual existence of the physical organization.

I’m sorry you were confused. I guess the best thing to do is to just make sure you don’t insult the Church or even appear to insult the Church. You can complain all you want; people do it all the time (obviously). It’s those ad hominems that are hurled against the Church that cause problems for me and for many other Catholics.

I don’t really know what other people feel about what I write, so it is hard for me to fully avoid it. I’ll try though. I’m not really sure how to complain about this without offending. If it offends you that I would suggest that the Church is not perfect how do I complain about the Church’s imperfections without offending you?

Thank you for your apology. I hope this clears it up. I should have realized you were new and not so sure about what is acceptable.

God bless!

You are welcome. Thank you for your charity and patience in explaining it to me. I’ll probably do it again, but not intentionally. Cheers!

 

[Nicea325]

Also, keep in mind that the protestant view of the Church is that it is the body of believers, not a building or an organization. Therefore, we might love the Church, but we are have nothing invested in the perpetual existence of the physical organization.

And what gave you the idea or impression the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years that "church’ is a only a building? The church is organic and it is living and with all human institutions,organization is usually part of the package. I think Jesus words: Go and preach to ALL nations, means He wanted His Church to grow and develop,not remain some underground insignifcant sect.

Catholics also believe the church is the Body of Believers,but under the same ‘universal’ doctrine and deposit of faith.

 

[dragon]

The only church that has been in existence since the days when Jesus walked the earth is, of course the one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church as is well documented in history.

Most non-Catholic Christians affiliate with a church based on anything but doctrine. Usually it’s something akin to seeking out a social network, or liking the pastors sermons or having family ties. Actually, they really don’t think it is necessary to go to church as in “house of worship” at all. When they can’t go or decide not to go to church, it makes no difference whatsoever. They worship how they want to, with no regard for how God set it up. My sis-in-law went to Mass with me last Christmas and had no idea about why priests wear vestments, about what the tabernacle and altar were for, etc. I referred her to Exodus, Ch 25 to 30 in the Old testament and explained that God so ordered our worship and has never changed it as far as can be determined by scripture. The sacrifice is diferent since Jesus died once and for all, but the worship theme and reverence of the liturgy are there for a reason. She was astounded and speechless.

I do not remember ever reading in the Bible where it said the Catholic Church was the one true church. The church is based on God and Jesus Christ. Believe in me and be saved. That is the church. Anything added after that is just extra and not necessary. I never read in the Bible calling for a Pope, extra sins, saints, etc.

The Old Testament refers to the Jewish God. Are Catholics of the Jewish religion??
As for praying Jesus said do not pray in public but go home and shut the door and pray.
It is my understanding that Jesus Christ died for our sins so we could have everlasting life. Through belief in him we would be saved. And a true belief in Jesus Christ would also would want to live a life as Jesus would have lived. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Texasgringo70]

And what gave you the idea or impression the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years that "church’ is a only a building?

Nothing. I said building OR organization to be inclusive of various beliefs so as to not offend. I tried again, but it didn’t work, again.

The church is organic and it is living and with all human institutions,organization is usually part of the package. I think Jesus words: Go and preach to ALL nations, means He wanted His Church to grow and develop,not remain some underground insignifcant sect.

Thank you very much for the example of the double standard of which I mentioned. You are very consistent in belittling protestant denominations. Your contempt oozes out so naturally. Heaven forbid if anyone reciprocate and express even a fraction of the disrespect (you have for protestants) toward the Catholic Church.

Catholics also believe the church is the Body of Believers,but under the same ‘universal’ doctrine and deposit of faith.

So why the contempt for protestants? Oh, that’s right, we aren’t really Christians. We are just an underground, insignificant sect. I’m OK with being respectful to the Catholic Church. I am not OK with rolling over every time my faith is trashed. If y’all are going to demand respect, how about showing some to the rest of us so we can see how that works?

 

[Sherry_G]

Dear Texasgringo:
You wrote:
So why the contempt for protestants? Oh, that’s right, we aren’t really Christians. We are just an underground, insignificant sect. I’m OK with being respectful to the Catholic Church. I am not OK with rolling over every time my faith is trashed. If y’all are going to demand respect, how about showing some to the rest of us so we can see how that works?

What does your church believe? What is your stance on whether you believe yours is the one true church or not. That was the question. No one is trying to attack your faith, but you seem to be doing just that to the Catholic Church. Bringing up any early Church member and pointing out all disagreements does not enhance this disucssion in any way. The Catholic church is one, regardless of any disagreements. Like any good family, we can disagree amongst ourselves, but Lord help the outsider who trashes our Mother, the Church. Luther voluntarily left the Church since he could not accept the doctrines of the faith. He decided that faith ALONE was sufficient for salvation, ruling out adherance to teachings of the Church. In other words, he chose to veer off into his own intellectual understanding. Polycarp on the other hand may have expressed some opinions which were not in line with Church teaching, so by his faith he decided to follow the Church. To say that he was browbeaten is really over the top.

Sorry if you feel personally attacked. We welcome your participation in Catholic Answers forums and discussions. I apologize if I offended you, too. Peace be with you.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Dear Texasgringo:
You wrote:
So why the contempt for protestants? Oh, that’s right, we aren’t really Christians. We are just an underground, insignificant sect. I’m OK with being respectful to the Catholic Church. I am not OK with rolling over every time my faith is trashed. If y’all are going to demand respect, how about showing some to the rest of us so we can see how that works?

What does your church believe? What is your stance on whether you believe yours is the one true church or not. That was the question.

I already said what I believe about the true Church, but I’ll give you a little extra material just for kicks:

*Rom 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Phil 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
*

The apostles saw Christianity as a return to true Judaism, a Judaism of the heart. Just as our Lord said that he did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. Similarly a true Christian is not one who is a Christian outwardly, by going to the right church for example, but one who is a disciple of Christ in his heart, by the spirit, not by the letter.

No one is trying to attack your faith, but you seem to be doing just that to the Catholic Church.

So Nicea325 calling protestants an underground, insignificant sect is not an attack, but me bringing up the possibility that the church might not have acted charitably towards Polycarp and Luther is an attack. I think I got it now.

Bringing up any early Church member and pointing out all disagreements does not enhance this disucssion in any way. The Catholic church is one, regardless of any disagreements.

What I discussed was exactly in line with the discussion you started with Metamorphoo. You were the one that brought Luther into the discussion. Doing so sparked an idea in my head to compare and contrast Polycarp and Luther and how their disagreements were treated by the Church. Like I said, if oneness requires strong arm tactics just how united are you?

Like any good family, we can disagree amongst ourselves, but Lord help the outsider who trashes our Mother, the Church.

Lord help the insider too. Luther was an insider.

Luther voluntarily left the Church since he could not accept the doctrines of the faith. He decided that faith ALONE was sufficient for salvation, ruling out adherance to teachings of the Church. In other words, he chose to veer off into his own intellectual understanding. Polycarp on the other hand may have expressed some opinions which were not in line with Church teaching, so by his faith he decided to follow the Church. To say that he was browbeaten is really over the top.

Luther was given an opportunity to recant, or be excommunicated. Something tells me Polycarp probably got the same option, but chose door number 2. Like you said Luther’s only option to stay in the Church was to suspend his intellect. If that is a voluntary departure, excommunications must really be ugly

Sorry if you feel personally attacked. We welcome your participation in Catholic Answers forums and discussions. I apologize if I offended you, too. Peace be with you.

I’ll be alright. Thanks. I don’t know why, but I felt a burning desire to straighten up something I had been noticing for a while and that is he inconstancy of the belief that the Church doesn’t have any disagreements or divisions when it has. Calling those divisions a heresy or a schism does not change the fact that they originated from within the Church.

I have enjoyed participating here. Y’all have caused me to think about my beliefs in ways I haven’t in a long time. It is nice to realize that the foundation is still there. I first started to read the forum in a thread about Islam. Compared to Islam, protestants and Catholics don’t have very many differences. Take away Islam and it is not so similar. Funny how that works.

Peace be with you as well.