Do you believe there is one true church?

[jmcrae]

The abuses in the Church were real. But the abuses were not why Luther separated from the Church. Luther separated from the Church because he wanted to be separate from the Church.

That’s exactly what I think, too. He just didn’t want to be obedient to authority. He used the abuses as an excuse to disobey God’s authority in the Church. He never even bothered to show up at the Council of Trent, when they were asking to hear his opinions - he didn’t care that they were correcting the abuses, which just goes to show that that was not the issue at all - he was just looking for an excuse to disobey.

 

[Harsalter]

Staying on course with this issue I still don’t believe that any one church can lay claim to being Christ’s only. After all, I seriously would doubt that he would lay claim to only one church and it be the one who condoned sexual abuse of children for decades and even centuries who has finally had to become honest with its parishioners about this grave travesty as over a billion dollars have been paid out in lawsuits.

The Church is perfect, the people in it are not.

I guess when people on this forum can’t win the debate, they resort to the above foolishness.

Guess we could follow the Jimmy Swaggarts and Jim Bakkers of the protestant world.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The Church does not condone sexual abuse.

As for the extent of the scandal, I’ve already responded to Traveller’s allegation by posting statistics. The rate of abuse among Catholic clergy is far far less than that of any other group.

Let me be clear: that does not excuse the relatively few clergy who transgressed. And it does not let us Catholics off the hook. It is our responsibility to help the victims to heal.

Traveller: The point is that you have chosen not to respond to the information I have posted and have chosen instead to displace your grievances against the offenders onto the entire Catholic Church.

Your choice does not make sense to me. It serves to perpetuate the victimization of the innocent, rather than end it. Victimizing the innocent will not bring the guilty to justice.

See JP2: NO PEACE WITHOUT JUSTICE NO JUSTICE WITHOUT FORGIVENESS

But because human justice is always fragile and imperfect, subject as it is to the limitations and egoism of individuals and groups, it must include and, as it were, be completed by the forgiveness which heals and rebuilds troubled human relations from their foundations. This is true in circumstances great and small, at the personal level or on a wider, even international scale. Forgiveness is in no way opposed to justice, as if to forgive meant to overlook the need to right the wrong done. It is rather the fullness of justice, leading to that tranquillity of order which is much more than a fragile and temporary cessation of hostilities, involving as it does the deepest healing of the wounds which fester in human hearts. Justice and forgiveness are both essential to such healing.

 

[PauloFreire2]

“My heart goes out for you, becoz you have judge the entire christianity community. Do know that judgement shall be upon you as well my dear brother in Christ.
God have mercy for you.”

Thanks. Yes, I need mercy. But maybe you do too. Haven’t you just judged ME, as well? Aren’t you really saying, “You’re going to Hell. I’ll pray for you”?

 

[Harsalter]

Thanks Ani Ibi. I quit reading the thread after I got to that pointless post.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

This may have been the aim (I’m not sure that it’s what the original Reformers were thinking based on their graffitti and vandalism, but it’s what modern day Protestants attribute to them) but it definitely was not the result - if this is what the Protestants hoped for, they did not succeed, since Protestantism immediately divided into at least three distinct factions: Mennonism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism, which disagreed not only with the Church but also with each other on fundamental issues, and from there it has been subdividing ever since, until today we have more Protestant denominations than we can accurately count.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church had The Council of Trent, the abuses of the time were corrected, doctrine was clarified, and here we still are today, reasonably intact, or at least no less so than we were during the time of the Apostles, which is as good as we’ll ever get, on this earth.

Can we not assume that diversity is a good thing (my point above) - perhaps as long as there is a core repository of faith?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The follow-up to this brilliant success would be to then re-join the Catholic Church - would it not?

Why remain in separated communities, if the reason for the separation no longer exists?

Of course there are excellent reasons for diversity, not least among them, strength, which is what my little allegory was all about. In diversity is strength.

I am not sure about your argument that Counter-Reformation would or should encourage people on either side to become one church organisation - unless it were Wesleyan Methodist, or some denomination with a bit less sense of … than RCC (the word escapes me).

And please let us not forget that we are, in theory, talking here about other faiths, not just those involved in Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The abuses in the Church were real. But the abuses were not why Luther separated from the Church. Luther separated from the Church because he wanted to be separate from the Church.

I think this is called wandering down the sidebar, and thus avoiding the core question.

 

[jmcrae]

Can we not assume that diversity is a good thing (my point above) - perhaps as long as there is a core repository of faith?

What sort of diversity are we talking about?

Should we have doctrinal diversity? I don’t think so - doctrines are either true or not true, and we should strive to believe whatever is true - that is, the authentic teachings of Christ that come down to us through the Apostles and their successors in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church already has every other kind of diversity - my best friend is a Filipino lady, we hang around with people from every nation and race at coffee, and our favourite priest is from Goa, India. That’s just in my little parish.

I don’t know of any Protestants who are of races or languages that are not represented in the Catholic Church already. I also don’t know of any kind of Protestant liturgy that, somewhere, is not being done better by a group of Catholics - Pentecostals have praise and worship; we have Life in the Spirit and LifeTeen; Presbyterians have Psalms services; we have the Liturgy of the Hours; Anglicans have Mass, we have Mass (Tridentine, Pauline, and various Eastern Rites); Baptists have Bible services; we have Little Rock and Scott Hahn Bible studies.

What, exactly, are we missing in the Catholic Church that the Protestants can supply?

 

[Contarini]

That’s exactly what I think, too. He just didn’t want to be obedient to authority. He used the abuses as an excuse to disobey God’s authority in the Church. He never even bothered to show up at the Council of Trent, when they were asking to hear his opinions

Yes, right. That’s an incredibly naive opinion. I don’t know of any serious Reformation historian who thinks that at this point there was any possibility that Luther’s ideas would have been taken seriously at Trent–any more than there was any possibility that the Protestants would have accepted the result of a General Council (however called) if it had contradicted the Gospel as they understood it.

Several other points to consider:

1. Luther died a few months after the first session of Trent opened, and I don’t think the Protestant theologians were invited till later, but I could be wrong there.
2. There was a debate among the Fathers of Trent as to whether Protestants should be given a safe-conduct to come to Trent. In the absence of such a safe-conduct, a condemnation of Protestant views as heretical (which as I said was pretty much a foregone conclusion by this point) would quite likely have been followed by the arrest and execution of the Protestant leaders. Even a safe-conduct wasn’t foolproof. Hus had been burned by the Council of Constance in 1415 in spite of an imperial safe-conduct (under almost exactly the same circumstances in which Protestants were being invited to Trent–the main difference was that the controversy wasn’t anywhere near as advanced or as inflamed in the case of Hus). Charles V, the reigning emperor, had refused to follow Emperor Sigismund’s dishonorable example when Luther came to Worms in 1521 (something you conveniently ignore, BTW–Luther put his life in grave danger on that occasion). But it was still iffy.
3. Finally, Luther specifically had been under the ban of the empire ever since 1521, so again without a safe-conduct it would have been suicide for him to appear at Trent.

Your argument is self-serving special pleading. I continue to be amazed at how vitriolic you think you have to be toward Protestantism. The Pope doesn’t talk this way. Why would a former Protestant talk this way? Where’s all that Catholic boasting about how ex-Protestants aren’t anti-Protestant? It’s certainly not true in your case!

• he didn’t care that they were correcting the abuses, which just goes to show that that was not the issue at all - he was just looking for an excuse to disobey.

Rather, Luther had become convinced by the early 1520s that the Papacy and hence the Catholic Church as a whole had gone seriously off the rails doctrinally, and that these doctrinal errors were the cause for the abuses. From his point of view Trent was putting skin lotion on a cancer. The problem was that the Catholic Church had obscured, if not rejected the Gospel.

You don’t need to attack Luther’s motivation–such a tactic is dubious, distasteful, and pointless. All you need is to show that Luther was wrong in believing that the Catholic Church had abandoned or even seriously obscured the Gospel. I think Luther was wrong, and I think that’s good enough reason to question Protestantism. You don’t need to distort history and put the worst construction on Luther’s motivations–and if you did then it would mean that you didn’t have much of a case, so it would of course still be wrong!

Edwin

 

[Steadfast]

Is there only one true Christian church?

I would like your answer to this question.

In other words: Did Jesus intend for there to be so many different churches? Why / why not??

Yes, there is only one church, THE church; all believers everywhere, always.

 

[jmcrae]

1. There was a debate among the Fathers of Trent as to whether Protestants should be given a safe-conduct to come to Trent.

It was granted. I have posted a link to the documents; the safe-conducts are recorded in the documents, along with the dates.

In the absence of such a safe-conduct, a condemnation of Protestant views as heretical (which as I said was pretty much a foregone conclusion by this point) would quite likely have been followed by the arrest and execution of the Protestant leaders.

A moot point; they were granted.

1. Finally, Luther specifically had been under the ban of the empire ever since 1521, so again without a safe-conduct it would have been suicide for him to appear at Trent.

A moot point; they were granted.

Rather, Luther had become convinced by the early 1520s that the Papacy and hence the Catholic Church as a whole had gone seriously off the rails doctrinally, and that these doctrinal errors were the cause for the abuses. From his point of view Trent was putting skin lotion on a cancer. The problem was that the Catholic Church had obscured, if not rejected the Gospel.

His own theology was not substantially different from Catholic theology at that time. It was other Protestants who were denying the motherhood of Mary, reducing the Sacraments, insisting on the Bible alone, etc. - Luther still believed in the teachings of the Church.

Therefore, his motivation was not theology.

Calvin’s motive was theology, and Menno’s motive was theology, (and they disagreed with each other) but Luther’s motive was something else.

But we would not have had either Calvin or Menno without Luther.

 

[cckz7]

Don’t be too hard on Traveller. He was very personally wounded and traumatized by the sex abuse scandal. He needs healing, more than conforntation. Anyway, you are setting a poor role model by feeding into this off thread tendency!

He is contending that the Catholic Church cannot possibly be the one established by Christ, since one will “know them by their fruits” and there has been rotton fruit.

A lot of Posters are hard on a lot of people.

It is possible to say contrary things in a charitable way… I would appreciate if everyone on this forum would try to be a little more “Christian” toward each other… whether they themselves are Christian or not…

 

[jack_hawkins]

A lot of Posters are hard on a lot of people.

It is possible to say contrary things in a charitable way… I would appreciate if everyone on this forum would try to be a little more “Christian” toward each other… whether they themselves are Christian or not…

Amen to that!

 

[cckz7]

Yes, right. That’s an incredibly naive opinion. I don’t know of any serious Reformation historian who thinks that at this point there was any possibility that Luther’s ideas would have been taken seriously at Trent–any more than there was any possibility that the Protestants would have accepted the result of a General Council (however called) if it had contradicted the Gospel as they understood it.

Several other points to consider:

1. Luther died a few months after the first session of Trent opened, and I don’t think the Protestant theologians were invited till later, but I could be wrong there.
2. There was a debate among the Fathers of Trent as to whether Protestants should be given a safe-conduct to come to Trent. In the absence of such a safe-conduct, a condemnation of Protestant views as heretical (which as I said was pretty much a foregone conclusion by this point) would quite likely have been followed by the arrest and execution of the Protestant leaders. Even a safe-conduct wasn’t foolproof. Hus had been burned by the Council of Constance in 1415 in spite of an imperial safe-conduct (under almost exactly the same circumstances in which Protestants were being invited to Trent–the main difference was that the controversy wasn’t anywhere near as advanced or as inflamed in the case of Hus). Charles V, the reigning emperor, had refused to follow Emperor Sigismund’s dishonorable example when Luther came to Worms in 1521 (something you conveniently ignore, BTW–Luther put his life in grave danger on that occasion). But it was still iffy.
3. Finally, Luther specifically had been under the ban of the empire ever since 1521, so again without a safe-conduct it would have been suicide for him to appear at Trent.

Your argument is self-serving special pleading. I continue to be amazed at how vitriolic you think you have to be toward Protestantism. The Pope doesn’t talk this way. Why would a former Protestant talk this way? Where’s all that Catholic boasting about how ex-Protestants aren’t anti-Protestant? It’s certainly not true in your case!

Rather, Luther had become convinced by the early 1520s that the Papacy and hence the Catholic Church as a whole had gone seriously off the rails doctrinally, and that these doctrinal errors were the cause for the abuses. From his point of view Trent was putting skin lotion on a cancer. The problem was that the Catholic Church had obscured, if not rejected the Gospel.

You don’t need to attack Luther’s motivation–such a tactic is dubious, distasteful, and pointless. All you need is to show that Luther was wrong in believing that the Catholic Church had abandoned or even seriously obscured the Gospel. I think Luther was wrong, and I think that’s good enough reason to question Protestantism. You don’t need to distort history and put the worst construction on Luther’s motivations–and if you did then it would mean that you didn’t have much of a case, so it would of course still be wrong!

Edwin

Councils don’t (didn’t) execute people. The Church was only authorized to question people, then tell the state whether or not they were heretics… The state then took it upon itself to punish the heretic as it saw fit. In those days, heretics were seen as being a threat to the stability of the state…If heresy was considered treason… well, then, Treason has always been an executable offense…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I think this is called wandering down the sidebar, and thus avoiding the core question.

I answered the core question. Perhaps my answer was not the answer you wanted. In which case you can provide your own answer. Fair enough?

 

[Sixtus]

Christ established his first, authoritative church through Peter and his apostles, but knew it would ultimately and inevitable be fragmented.

His divine nature made it impossible for him not to know this, as has been pointed out elsewhere.

Christ did not intervene at any point in the history of his universal church when secession threatened and actually occurred

That is an interesting thesis. An athiest friend of mine argues that irreperable changes occur every 22-generations.

He argues vehemently that 22-generations x 100-1 * ultimately Christianity is doomed to fail as it will become so fragmented, watered down, no one will be able to recall what the original message was, much less so Christ on Whom it was founded *

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It’s your denial of the facts not mine. Call it a lack of reasearch or whatever you will, but the facts still remain about the Catholic church and its role in Nazism and the Spanish Inquisition.

6 days later you logged in but could not be bothered to back this up as asked - just to snipe at other things.

That is telling.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Succinctly put, Sir. Thank you.

And I completely agree, with you also. Where do these born again somethings think they get their scriptures from anyway?
Grace Angel.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Amen to that!

Jack respectfully, its those born again somethings who come to this forum and sprout their beliefs. We who come here (me especially) come here because it is meant to be a fantastic catholic forum. this means like minded, or similar minded, or on the same journey and just needing direction, or just sharing a moment of life together etc.
There are several posters who simply post anti catholic diatribe and its not fair. I love being here and I hate seeing/hearing anti catholic rot.
Thank you.
Grace Angel.