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

[diggerdomer]

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.

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.

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?

Lord help the insider too. Luther was an insider.

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

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.

From what we know, Polycarp neither recanted nor was excommunicated. Thanks be to God.

 

[Metamorphoo]

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.

I also have been taught to treat Jewish people with respect. But until about nine years ago, I never knew that Christians often DID NOT respect the Jewish people for most of the past 2000 years. A major shift occurred in the thinking of Christians after the Holocaust, as Hitler tried to justify his treatment of Jews by stating that Christendom had done the same kinds of things to Jews for many centuries. A lot of Christian leaders began to realize that Christians were indeed responsible for creating an environment that enabled Hitler to do the atrocities that he committed against the Jewish people.

It was quite a shock for me–and grieved me greatly–when I realized the injustices that had been inflicted upon the Jews in the name of Christ. I would not have believed it if I had not read the very words of Christian leaders who wrote them, the decrees of church councils, and read the decrees enacted by church leaders that discriminated against the Jewish people. I am not singling out the Catholic Church (although it definitely participated in this); Protestantism and the Eastern Orthodox are guilty, too. Martin Luther, for example, was horribly, horribly anti-Jewish in the latter part of his life–going so far as to advocate for the burning of synogogues, the razing of their homes, and confiscating their property!!! Hitler latched on to Luther’s words in Luther’s treatise, “On the Jews and their Lies,” and did some of the things to Jews that Luther advocated. Hitler also defended putting Jews in ghettos and making them wear badges, stating that the Catholic Church had done the same thing during the Middle Ages (a couple of instances in which such actions were decreed include: the papal bull Cum Nimis Absurdum and Canon 68 of the Fourth Lateran Council.

There are plenty of other examples that I could list as well–and they show up pretty early in the history of Christendom. So when I read Constantine’s letter, I read it from the vantage point of other things that had been written and decreed by Christian leaders against the Jews–prior to and subsequent to that time period. That’s why the Council of Nicea’s decision on the Quartodeciman issue and Constantine’s explanation of the Council’s rationale behind the decision (“we can’t have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord”) bothers me so much.

To be sure, there were some Church leaders who tried to protect the Jewish people from unjust treatment (notable examples include Pope John XVIII and Gregory IX); but they were fighting a Christian culture that believed God had cursed the Jewish people for murdering Christ–and Jews did not deserve to be treated in a humane manner.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

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”.

I don’t understand. Didn’t you agree to follow the forum rules when you became a member? If you break a rule, you should be told, shouldn’t you? Did you read the rules? Am I supposed to let you break the rule about showing respect for the Church? Am I supposed to turn my head when I think someone is insulting the Church I love?

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 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?

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!

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

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”.

I “whipped out the forum rules on you right away”? How many posts have you put in this thread? The post I was upset about was not the first. I did not “whip” out the forum rules right away.

Did you agree to follow the forum rules? If you did, and I see you breaking the rule regarding showing respect to the Church should I close my eyes and pretend I don’t see? What would you have me do?

I don’t know about the comment in another thread, so I’m not going to comment on that comment.

The Church is perfect because it is the Body of Christ:

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, his body, which is the church:

Wanting…** There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.**
[Colossians 1:24, Douay-Rheims, bolding added]

The Church is perfect because she is also the Bride of Christ. The Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ are one. There can be no imperfection in Christ or in His Bride, who is one with Christ.

Individual members of the Church (the faithful) are part of the Church, but we are fallible and here you have a point in saying the Church is not perfect. But even here a perfect God shows mercy. If I sin I’m offered the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Even if I tried to promote heresy and was excommunicated the Church would welcome me back as the father of the prodigal son did. All I would need to do is to confess and repent.

The Church is a paradox. If you look at her from her position as the Body of Christ, she is indeed perfect. If you look at her from the actions of her fallible members, they have imperfections, but the body of Christ cannot be imperfect. It’s something that mere mortals cannot comprehend or if they do, it’s very difficult to put into words. I understand some of it in my mind and have absolutely no idea how to express it.

The Church is multi-faceted. While individual members may falter, the Church herself is in a state of perfection. She has to be because she is in the Body of Christ. She is the Body of Christ, even more than husband and wife are one. The relationship between Christ and the Church is holy, divine, and 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 but I have no idea what you are saying here.

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?

Nobody can post here consistently without offending people. It’s difficult to communicate in this way because there’s no inflection in speech and no body language. A person can take a statement as charitable or as sarcastic by simply putting emphasis on one word instead of another.

It doesn’t offend me at all if you say the Church is not perfect. You can complain all you want. It’s not offensive to say the Church isn’t perfect. But it can become offensive if it isn’t stated in a respectful way. I don’t usually mind too much if someone throws an ad hominem at me. It’s when I feel the Church is offended that I step in because now someone is speaking badly of Jesus. Catholics defend the Church and as this is a Catholic forum, you’ll find (if you haven’t already) that we rush to the defense of the most important thing in our lives. I don’t know if you’re aware that many of us are willing to die for the Church. I am. That’s how important she is to me.

The most consistent thing I have seen at CAF is the defense of the Church by the Catholic members here.

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!

I’m happy you’re here. I’m sure we can learn from each other. We’re on the same side; we want to serve God and go home to Him one day.
God bless!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

I also have been taught to treat Jewish people with respect. But until about nine years ago, I never knew that Christians often DID NOT respect the Jewish people for most of the past 2000 years. A major shift occurred in the thinking of Christians after the Holocaust, as Hitler tried to justify his treatment of Jews by stating that Christendom had done the same kinds of things to Jews for many centuries. A lot of Christian leaders began to realize that Christians were indeed responsible for creating an environment that enabled Hitler to do the atrocities that he committed against the Jewish people.

It was quite a shock for me–and grieved me greatly–when I realized the injustices that had been inflicted upon the Jews in the name of Christ. I would not have believed it if I had not read the very words of Christian leaders who wrote them, the decrees of church councils, and read the decrees enacted by church leaders that discriminated against the Jewish people. I am not singling out the Catholic Church (although it definitely participated in this); Protestantism and the Eastern Orthodox are guilty, too. Martin Luther, for example, was horribly, horribly anti-Jewish in the latter part of his life–going so far as to advocate for the burning of synogogues, the razing of their homes, and confiscating their property!!! Hitler latched on to Luther’s words in Luther’s treatise, “On the Jews and their Lies,” and did some of the things to Jews that Luther advocated. Hitler also defended putting Jews in ghettos and making them wear badges, stating that the Catholic Church had done the same thing during the Middle Ages (a couple of instances in which such actions were decreed include: the papal bull Cum Nimis Absurdum and Canon 68 of the Fourth Lateran Council.

There are plenty of other examples that I could list as well–and they show up pretty early in the history of Christendom. So when I read Constantine’s letter, I read it from the vantage point of other things that had been written and decreed by Christian leaders against the Jews–prior to and subsequent to that time period. That’s why the Council of Nicea’s decision on the Quartodeciman issue and Constantine’s explanation of the Council’s rationale behind the decision (“we can’t have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord”) bothers me so much.

To be sure, there were some Church leaders who tried to protect the Jewish people from unjust treatment (notable examples include Pope John XVIII and Gregory IX); but they were fighting a Christian culture that believed God had cursed the Jewish people for murdering Christ–and Jews did not deserve to be treated in a humane manner.

As I stated before, this is very new to me. However, I do want to say that a person who tortures and murders in the name of Christ is not a Christian. I also want to say that a lot of Catholics were killed, also. IMO Hitler used whatever means he could to ensure his plans of genocide and his “master race” ruling the world would work.

I don’t believe for one second that the Catholic Church did anything to help Hitler succeed in his project. There may have been individual so-called Catholics who did so, but this has no bearing on whether the Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and no bearing on the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ.

I want to reserve comment on the rest of your post until I have had time to study this. I’m sorry but that’s the way it has to be right now. And when I study this, I won’t use Wiki as a source. Anything taken from Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone can go in there and change things. I have. It’s a terrible source for information.

Now if you want to discuss abortion, I’ll be happy to see you in the Social Justice forum.

 

[Metamorphoo]

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.

I think your statements reflect the thinking of a lot of Christians … but I think it is because most Christians are unfamiliar with how ALL of the God-commanded festivals of the Jewish calendar–not just Passover–contain the story of God’s redemption of mankind through Christ. So Christians think of those rituals as passe and irrelevant with the coming of Christ.

From a Jewish perspective, Passover was not merely a looking back at God’s redemption of Israel from Egyptian slavery; it also pointed to the day in the future when the Lord would free His People from slavery to sin. Israel’s Passover, as great as it was, was merely a shadow of the REAL Passover: the redemption that God would bring for to man through Christ.

Although we are not under obligation to observe the Jewish law, I do think that as Gentiles believers, we minimize the value of those OT rituals because we don’t see Jesus in them. Consequently, we don’t really comprehend how fully Christ was foreshadowed in the OT–and especially in the rituals of the Mosaic Law. The disconnect Christians have in this area hinders us in at least a couple of different ways: (1) we don’t have as much of an understanding of the Scriptures and the depth to which they testify to Christ; and (2) we are not able to communicate effectively to Jews how Jesus is revealed in the Mosaic Law because we don’t understand it ourselves. Jews see Easter as something pagan; imagine the impact the Church might have if we could communicate the Gospel of Christ through that which Jews already embrace in their own spiritual tradition.

I regret that the Council of Nicea chose to move the dating of Easter so that it does not reflect its biblical and historical moorings to the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread/Day of Firstfruits. On the Jewish religious calendar, Jesus actually rose from the dead on Firstfruits, which gives so much richness to 1 Corinthians 15, the great chapter in which Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead: “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who are asleep” (v. 20).

I will get off my soapbox now. Just take this as my plug for studying the OT Hebrew festivals. You will be amazed at how much they teach about the Lord’s plan of redemption through Christ–and how much they enrich your understanding of Scripture.

 

[Metamorphoo]

I want to reserve comment on the rest of your post until I have had time to study this. I’m sorry but that’s the way it has to be right now. And when I study this, I won’t use Wiki as a source. Anything taken from Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone can go in there and change things. I have. It’s a terrible source for information.

Fair enough … I didn’t particularly want to use the Wiki source (for the reason that you mentioned), but I couldn’t locate my usual source, so I used this one instead.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think your statements reflect the thinking of a lot of Christians … but I think it is because most Christians are unfamiliar with how ALL of the God-commanded festivals of the Jewish calendar–not just Passover–contain the story of God’s redemption of mankind through Christ. So Christians think of those rituals as passe and irrelevant with the coming of Christ.

Passover was not merely a looking back at God’s redemption of Israel from Egyptian slavery; it also pointed to the day in the future when the Lord would free His People from slavery to sin. Israel’s Passover, as great as it was, was merely a shadow of the REAL Passover: the redemption that God would bring for to man through Christ.

Although we are not under obligation to observe the Jewish law, I do think that as Gentiles believers, we minimize the value of those OT rituals because we don’t see Jesus in them. Consequently, we don’t really comprehend how fully Christ was foreshadowed in the OT–and especially in the rituals of the Mosaic Law. The disconnect Christians have in this area hinders us in at least a couple of different ways: (1) we don’t have as much of an understanding of the Scriptures and the depth to which they testify to Christ; and (2) we are not able to communicate effectively to Jews how Jesus is revealed in the Mosaic Law because we don’t understand it ourselves. Jews see Easter as something pagan; imagine the impact the Church might have if we could communicate the Gospel of Christ through that which Jews already embrace in their own spiritual tradition.

I regret that the Council of Nicea chose to move the dating of Easter so that it does not reflect its biblical and historical moorings to the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread/Day of Firstfruits. On the Jewish religious calendar, Jesus actually rose from the dead on Firstfruits, which gives so much richness to 1 Corinthians 15, the great chapter in which Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead: “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who are asleep” (v. 20).

I will get off my soapbox now. Just take this as my plug for studying the OT Hebrew festivals. You will be amazed at how much they teach about the Lord’s plan of redemption through Christ.

The Church’s decision on when to celebrate Easter in now way denies the Biblical and historical moorings to Jewish tradition.

 

[Metamorphoo]

The Church’s decision on when to celebrate Easter in now way denies the Biblical and historical moorings to Jewish tradition.

I’m not saying that it denied it. I am saying that it has obscured it.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not saying that it denied it. I am saying that it has obscured it.

Sorry if I misread what you posted. I apparently misread your saying “does not reflect”…I didn’t interpret that as simply “obscuring.”

I still disagree that the decision to celebrate Easter on Sunday obscured, or does not relfect, the Jewish heritage relevant to the Christian celebration. Look at the Scripture readings chosen for the Easter Vigil.

 

[Johnwesley]

No we do not! Christ was not selfish and did not find one “denomination” he found the Catholic NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC but Catholic meaning universal church which he basically just let men look at the bible and take different interpritations of it. But if you believe in Jesus Christ and have been Saved your going to heaven. Period! Don’t care who you are.

 

[rovimax]

No we do not! Christ was not selfish and did not find one “denomination” he found the Catholic NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC but Catholic meaning universal church which he basically just let men look at the bible and take different interpritations of it. But if you believe in Jesus Christ and have been Saved your going to heaven. Period! Don’t care who you are.

If Jesus established a Church why other men established their own? Mat 16 is very clear only one Church was built. Nothing else, only the selfish one’s built their own church that’s why there are plenty now…

 

[Johnwesley]

If Jesus established a Church why other men established their own? Mat 16 is very clear only one Church was built. Nothing else, only the selfish one’s built their own church that’s why there are plenty now…

I don’t know, why did some men from Rome find the Roman Catholic church, and say Jesus found it. It’s beyond me!

 

[Texasgringo70]

I “whipped out the forum rules on you right away”? How many posts have you put in this thread? The post I was upset about was not the first. I did not “whip” out the forum rules right away.

Did you agree to follow the forum rules? If you did, and I see you breaking the rule regarding showing respect to the Church should I close my eyes and pretend I don’t see? What would you have me do?

I don’t know about the comment in another thread, so I’m not going to comment on that comment.

The Church is perfect because it is the Body of Christ:

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, his body, which is the church:

Wanting…** There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.**
[Colossians 1:24, Douay-Rheims, bolding added]

The Church is perfect because she is also the Bride of Christ. The Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ are one. There can be no imperfection in Christ or in His Bride, who is one with Christ.

Individual members of the Church (the faithful) are part of the Church, but we are fallible and here you have a point in saying the Church is not perfect. But even here a perfect God shows mercy. If I sin I’m offered the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Even if I tried to promote heresy and was excommunicated the Church would welcome me back as the father of the prodigal son did. All I would need to do is to confess and repent.

The Church is a paradox. If you look at her from her position as the Body of Christ, she is indeed perfect. If you look at her from the actions of her fallible members, they have imperfections, but the body of Christ cannot be imperfect. It’s something that mere mortals cannot comprehend or if they do, it’s very difficult to put into words. I understand some of it in my mind and have absolutely no idea how to express it.

The Church is multi-faceted. While individual members may falter, the Church herself is in a state of perfection. She has to be because she is in the Body of Christ. She is the Body of Christ, even more than husband and wife are one. The relationship between Christ and the Church is holy, divine, and perfect.

I’m sorry but I have no idea what you are saying here.

Nobody can post here consistently without offending people. It’s difficult to communicate in this way because there’s no inflection in speech and no body language. A person can take a statement as charitable or as sarcastic by simply putting emphasis on one word instead of another.

It doesn’t offend me at all if you say the Church is not perfect. You can complain all you want. It’s not offensive to say the Church isn’t perfect. But it can become offensive if it isn’t stated in a respectful way. I don’t usually mind too much if someone throws an ad hominem at me. It’s when I feel the Church is offended that I step in because now someone is speaking badly of Jesus. Catholics defend the Church and as this is a Catholic forum, you’ll find (if you haven’t already) that we rush to the defense of the most important thing in our lives. I don’t know if you’re aware that many of us are willing to die for the Church. I am. That’s how important she is to me.

The most consistent thing I have seen at CAF is the defense of the Church by the Catholic members here.

I’m happy you’re here. I’m sure we can learn from each other. We’re on the same side; we want to serve God and go home to Him one day.
God bless!!

Thanks again for your patience. Of course I agreed to the terms of use for the site. Like I said before my biggest problem is not realizing what is offensive. I have many thoughts on the remainder of your comments, but I can’t seem to organize them intelligently right now. For now please understand that my comments on perfection relate to the human element of the Church, not Christ Himself. The line of demarcation between the two sides of the paradox according to the Catholic Church is not very to me yet and therein lies our problem.

All the best.

 

[Texasgringo70]

If Jesus established a Church why other men established their own? Mat 16 is very clear only one Church was built. Nothing else, only the selfish one’s built their own church that’s why there are plenty now…

Philippians 1:15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.

The apostle Paul was happy enough to see others preach Christ even with selfish motives. We could argue about who is selfish and and who has pure motives, but that would only divide us further. Would it not benefit us more to simply rejoice like the apostle Paul that Christ is being preached by protestants and catholics alike?

 

[Dokimas]

Philippians 1:15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.

The apostle Paul was happy enough to see others preach Christ even with selfish motives. We could argue about who is selfish and and who has pure motives, but that would only divide us further. Would it not benefit us more to simply rejoice like the apostle Paul that Christ is being preached by protestants and catholics alike?

Very good point. Thank you for this voice of reason.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ah. I was reading this earlier today when I was saying the LOTH (Liturgy of the Hours) and read the passage of St. Paul above.

However, I had a slightly different take.

Remember, that St. Paul was not saying that Christ was being proclaimed in different ‘ways’, but rather from different ‘motives’.

Christ’s teachings were being presented perfectly correctly, but the ‘motive’ that people had for giving the correct teachings differed. Even though some were proclaiming Him and thinking that this would ‘harm’ St. Paul, St. Paul rejoiced because Christ was being proclaimed.

However, elsewhere in Scripture St. Paul warns us of division. He warns us to 'hold fast to the traditions you have received from me, both oral and written". He also speaks rather harshly of those who 'preach a different gospel from the one you have heard". . .

In so far as Catholics and Protestants speak truthfully of Christ (and Protestants certainly possess much of the truth of Christianity, I have never said otherwise), well and good. Christ is being proclaimed and when it is truthful, it does not ‘matter’ whether it is Catholic or Protestant speaking that truth.

But when error creeps in, it DOES matter. It would be a matter of indifferentism for me as a Catholic were I to say of a Protestant ‘teaching’ which mixed truth and error, "well, the important thing is Christ is being spoken of.’ Because it isn’t. The important thing is the TRUTH of Christ, and any falsehood or error detracts from that.

I’m sure my Protestant friends would feel the same way. So long as we Catholics ‘jibe’ with their Protestant understanding, it’s fine, but bring in Mary for example, or heck, even bring in Christ as the Real Presence and suddenly, it doesn’t matter that we are ‘speaking of Christ’ --we’re the evil empire RCC full of error yadda yadda.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Ah. I was reading this earlier today when I was saying the LOTH (Liturgy of the Hours) and read the passage of St. Paul above.

However, I had a slightly different take.

Remember, that St. Paul was not saying that Christ was being proclaimed in different ‘ways’, but rather from different ‘motives’.

Christ’s teachings were being presented perfectly correctly, but the ‘motive’ that people had for giving the correct teachings differed. Even though some were proclaiming Him and thinking that this would ‘harm’ St. Paul, St. Paul rejoiced because Christ was being proclaimed.

However, elsewhere in Scripture St. Paul warns us of division. He warns us to 'hold fast to the traditions you have received from me, both oral and written". He also speaks rather harshly of those who 'preach a different gospel from the one you have heard". . .

In so far as Catholics and Protestants speak truthfully of Christ (and Protestants certainly possess much of the truth of Christianity, I have never said otherwise), well and good. Christ is being proclaimed and when it is truthful, it does not ‘matter’ whether it is Catholic or Protestant speaking that truth.

But when error creeps in, it DOES matter. It would be a matter of indifferentism for me as a Catholic were I to say of a Protestant ‘teaching’ which mixed truth and error, "well, the important thing is Christ is being spoken of.’ Because it isn’t. The important thing is the TRUTH of Christ, and any falsehood or error detracts from that.

I’m sure my Protestant friends would feel the same way. So long as we Catholics ‘jibe’ with their Protestant understanding, it’s fine, but bring in Mary for example, or heck, even bring in Christ as the Real Presence and suddenly, it doesn’t matter that we are ‘speaking of Christ’ --we’re the evil empire RCC full of error yadda yadda.

I like your sarcasm. I feel the same way some times (with the rolls reversed), but if I express it here I can get in trouble.

I am not really sure how to square the bit about truth with Vatican II. If protestant teaching can lead to salvation (according to Vatican II) is it really in error? Obviously there are some lines that cannot be crossed, but if results are the the standard by which methods are judged, why is it so hard to accept that we are all on the same team here?

 

[LittleSoldier]

No we do not! Christ was not selfish and did not find one “denomination” he found the Catholic NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC but Catholic meaning universal church which he basically just let men look at the bible and take different interpritations of it. But if you believe in Jesus Christ and have been Saved your going to heaven. Period! Don’t care who you are.

Does that include a rapist/torturer/murderer of small children who was saved a year ago and believes in Jesus and will keep on raping/torturing/murdering small children until the day he dies?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t know, why did some men from Rome find the Roman Catholic church, and say Jesus found it. It’s beyond me!

It didn’t happen that way. Peter was the first Pope and Jesus founded the Church on him. Ever since that time there has been an unbroken chain of popes and Apostolic Tradition. What do you mean by “some men from Rome”?

Do you deny holy scripture? Did Jesus say:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Matthew 16:18-19, KJV]

And that is exactly what happened. Didn’t it? Christianity and Catholicism were one and the same until some people didn’t like what the Church said or the bible stated and took some books out or added a word (specifically “alone”) or who wanted to get a divorce. Or was Jesus lying when He said those words to Peter? Or did He really say “Well, you’re Peter and I’m going to build something like a church on this rock and the gates of hell shall -]not/-], no I mean they will prevail against it, but it’s good enough for now. So it’s OK when Catholics put the bible together that others won’t like it and they’ll leave my Church but on the other hand it’s not really My Church but just a church that is fallible, like me. Wait a minute. I’m not fallible. I’m infallible, aren’t I? I mean, I’m God, aren’t I? Well, never mind, obviously my Church will be fallible even if I say it isn’t and the gates of hell are sure gonna prevail against it even though I say they won’t - I guess hell is stronger than me. Oh, and here are the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

This was God speaking!

The Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The history goes right back to that conversation between Jesus and Peter.

You’re looking at it backwards.