Do you believe there is one true church?

[Carol_Coombe]

There are also certain principles that all Canadians have to hold in common, in order to be “good Canadians.” Bad Canadians are readily identifiable - not by colour of skin or language/culture of origin, but by loyalties and attitudes.

One could question whether it would still really be Canada if Quebec were not trying to separate; they have been doing so for so long. Something would be missing if they were to suddenly decide that they want to stay.

The 1995 Quebec referendum was the second, nearly identical referendum in the Canadian province of Quebec (see 1980 Quebec referendum) that put to public vote the political roles of Quebec and Canada. Specifically, the referendum asked whether Quebec should secede from Canada and become an independent state. One minor difference between the 1980 and the 1995 referendums was that whereas the first vote was on a proposal to negotiate something termed ‘sovereignty-association’, the second one was on ‘sovereignty’ along with an optional partnership offer. The referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to pursue Quebec’s independence was defeated by an extremely small margin, 50.58% “No” to 49.42% “Yes”.

This response wrt the Province of Quebec and its responsibility for some of its foreign affairs links is quite beside the point of this discussion, as I am sure you are aware. The issue is that the federation has grown, and it has held. What might have happened did not happen, and is not likely to happen. The analogy I made stands.

There has been little further talk, as far as I, a Canadian resident in Canada for two months each year, know because the economic consequences for the province would be egregous.

 

[AngelRose81]

Yes, I believe that the Catholic church is the one true church, but obviously, I’m Catholic.

However, to put a Protestant view in there, the Church of Christ (the one popular here in the South, affiliated with David Lipscomp & Freed Hardeman U), believe that they are the one true church that Jesus founded. That was said in a wedding I went to at a Church of Christ Church, at least.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

But, by this analogy, we would have african catholics, united states catholics, canadian catholics, etc.

No, I meant by this analogy that there would be many varying kinds of Christians, some of them Methodist, some Catholic, some Baptist. I also meant that denominations within the church would choose, on the basis of the deposit of faith, which part of their Christian-ness to emphasise, to focus on.

But you must know, partly by instinct, partly by experience (see Keating projects letter) there are already various ‘denominations’ within the Catholic Church itself. And also that there are already - don’t be frightened, don’t be astonished - African Catholics, American Catholics, Russian Orthodox Catholics, Phillipino Catholics, French Catholics, Brazilian Catholics. And if you think that all are identical, then perhaps you should think again.

For example, I have never seen a chick track in any part of the world I have visited. But in your part of the world, it makes a profound impact on the attitudes and concerns of local Catholics, as you yourself have said. So you as Catholic are different from Gail as Catholic in Canada, or Marc as Catholic in South Africa, ne?

That would mean that the Catholic Church would need to absorb different ethnicities and preserve their ethnicities while infusing them with the uniquely Catholic teachings of Christ.

The analogy was not related to ethnicities, but to historical experience in various parts of the world and even within nations, the mental landscapes of individuals and peoples, poverty or wealth - eg the Liberation Theology of South America. This is not a question of ethnic-related belief, but a belief based on relative status and a whole bunch more.

No, I do not think so. I think the Catholic Church is able to infuse ethnicities without destroying them, thereby valuing diversity. This is demonstrated at my local Byzantine parish, which is about as “un-Roman” a Church as you might find.

It is irrelevant which way the world is moving, because we are living in a culture of death, and the world is destined for a crash. Faith must not move with the world, but with the Spirit. I believe the Spirit values diversity, and that God wants all the unique cultures and persons He has created to be in unity together.

Yes, the Catholic Church can infuse ethnicities without disturbing their core too much, although the Christian intervention in Africa has been both a blessing and a curse, whether Catholic or not.

But we are not talking about that. We are talking about Christendom being able, because of its diversity within the universal church of Christ, to speak to men and women everywhere, whatever their mental landscape.

If faith is to move the world, it must move with the world. I cannot believe that you believe that the Catholic Church has stood immoveable and unchanged for the past 2000 years! It has not - and you know that, or must know it. It is an assumption that is made often on this Forum, and one about which I have made no comment, but it is not a correct assumption.

And I am not one with you in your belief that we are inevitably, as humans, heading for a crash. That will happen only if we do not work cooperatively, in community of love and compassion, willingness and courage. That is the basis on which unity must be founded.

But how to have diversity without departing from the truth?

That depends on how you define truth, beauty, grace, compassion, courage, divine; the extent to which you are willing to permit individuals and communities to choose their beliefs and to respect those beliefs - and here I talk not only of Christians, but of Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists and others; and your willingness to work with others who are not exactly the same as you, who are not made in your mold, not modelled on you, but who are also divine and equally divine.

My Catholicism will be my faith. I will not force it on anyone else as the Absolute Truth. That is for The Other to decide. I would hope that my spirit will be one with others’. (Or is this the Hallmark Card form of spiritualism, as AN Other said on this thread?)

 

[guanophore]

I meant by this that there would be many varying kinds of Christians, some of them Methodist, some Catholic, some Baptist. I also meant that denominations within the church would choose, on the basis of the deposit of faith, which part of their Christian-ness to emphasise, to focus on.

I think this is an accurate description of the current state of events.

But there are already various ‘denominations’ within the Catholic Church itself. And also that there are already - don’t be frightened, don’t be astonished - African Catholics, American Catholics, Russian Orthodox Catholics, Phillipino Catholics, French Catholics, Brazilian Catholics. And if you think that all are identical, then perhaps you should think again.

doctrinally, they are identical, or they are not Catholic. Ethinically and culrually, hopefully not!

So you as Catholic are different from Gail as Catholic in Canada, or Marc as Catholic in South Africa, ne?

In practice? Perhaps in response to the differnces in the culture in which we all live. The doctrine is the same, or they are not Catholic, but how that is implemented and expressed may be different. That is why I don’t think they are properly called “denominations”. Different denominations have differences is belief (creed) and doctrine. Whereas, if someone does not espouse the Catholic Teaching, they are not Catholic.

This is not a question of ethnic-related belief, but a belief based on relative status and a whole bunch more.

I realize this, and that is why I am suspicious of relativism becoming the standard, instead of the Teachings of Christ as handed on through the Apostles.

We are talking about Christendom being able, because of its diversity within the universal church of Christ, to speak to men and women everywhere, whatever their mental landscape.

If faith is to move the world, it must move with the world. I cannot believe that you believe that the Catholic Church has stood immoveable and unchanged for the past 2000 years! It has not - and you know that, or must know it. It is an assumption that is made often on this Forum, and one about which I have made no comment, but it is not a correct assumption.

Only in doctrine. In fact, I think where the Church has gotten into the most trouble is trying to “move with the world”.

And I am not one with you in your belief that we are inevitably, as humans, heading for a crash.

I am not sure what this is about, and it probably belongs on another thread. However, scripture teaches us that, the world as we know it will come to an end.

That will happen only if we do not work cooperatively, in community of love and compassion, willingness and courage. That is the basis on which unity must be founded.

This sounds very tempting. However, I think the foundation is Christ. Whatever humanistic motives and efforts we may have will ultimately only have a limited effect unless they are grounded in the person of Christ. He is the basis upon which unity is founded, not our own work.

the extent to which you are willing to permit individuals and communities to choose their beliefs and to respect those beliefs - and here I talk not only of Christians, but of Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists and others; and your willingness to work with others who are not exactly the same as you, who are not made in your mold, not modelled on you, but who are also divine and equally divine.

I am willing to work humanistically with all who are working for good. Those who are not against us are for us. I also affirm the right of every person to choose their own beliefs, and I will respect those beliefs. I don’ t think this is anything I “permit” but what God has ordained. However, I do not think that everyone is equally divine, and there is no one who is like Christ.

My Catholicism will be my faith. I will not force it on anyone else as the Absolute Truth. That is for The Other to decide. I would hope that my spirit will be one with others’. (Or is this the Hallmark Card form of spiritualism, as AN Other said on this thread?)

It is not the way of Christ to “force” Himself on anyone, neither does He wish us to do so. However, unity only occurs when we are all one in Him, and will flow natrually through our connection in Him.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Carol,

I worked for a long time in Canada…your belief that Canada is some kind of model of unity and diversity simply doesn’t hold water. I don’t think the term ‘French’ Quebec is particularly inclusive and the fight isn’t over just yet. While I agree with you that the economic impact of their secession would be egregious…the simple reality is that the folks in ‘French’ Quebec, for the most part, don’t care.

Shall we get back on topic now?

Iowa Mike

 

[distracted]

Can’t find it but someone (Poster here) said that Christianity is doomed, eventually, becausee of all the fragmentations…

If Protestantism and all its many fragmentations hasn’t destroyed Christianity or the Catholic Church yet, it probably isn’t going to happen.

Also: If Catholics haven’t destroyed the Church yet - same thing…

“On this rock i will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” [Jesus/Matthew 16:18]

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Can’t find it but someone (Poster here) said that Christianity is doomed, eventually, becausee of all the fragmentations…

If Protestantism and all its many fragmentations hasn’t destroyed Christianity or the Catholic Church yet, it probably isn’t going to happen.

Also: If Catholics haven’t destroyed the Church yet - same thing…

“On this rock i will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” [Jesus/Matthew 16:18]

Christ said he would be with us (his Church) until the end of time. Just go to the last book of the bible, the simple interpretation is…we win!

Iowa Mike

 

[distracted]

Can’t find it but someone (Poster here) said that Christianity is doomed, eventually, becausee of all the fragmentations…

If Protestantism and all its many fragmentations hasn’t destroyed Christianity or the Catholic Church yet, it probably isn’t going to happen.

Also: If Catholics haven’t destroyed the Church yet - same thing…

“On this rock i will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” [Jesus/Matthew 16:18]

 

[Grace_Angel]

Excuse me? This kind of cackled response from a Christian gives me shivers up and down my spine, raises my hackles, and offends my conscience. What would you do if you met someone who was *really *different from you?

Dear Carol, I humbly apologise if I have offended or hurt you.
Grace Angel.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

No comprehension problem here Rich, I think that you should study Catholic 101 and check out the word venerate and do some research on it. Tell you what, I will share some knowledge with you; venerate means deep honor and worship. To kneel before a statue of Mary isn’t just to say “how ya doin’”. Been there done that and I regretted it. Take it from someone who was Catholic for 34 years.

Traveller,

I still await your answer to my questions about your negative reaction to my calling the Church, She. I am also stuill interested in hearing exactly why you left the Catholic Church.

With respect to Catholic 101, you might want to take a refresher course yourself. I refer you to the CCC - 971. Here the Church clearly sets apart the devotion to Mary from adoration given to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I trust you won’t have a problem with the use of the word devotion since it basically means “strong attachment (to) or affection (for a cause, person, etc.) marked by dedicated loyalty.” It also means 'religious zeal; piety and religious observance or prayers."

Also the devotion to Mary is soundly justified in both scripture and tradition so your obvious revulsion and hair splitting about devotion to her is puzzling and sad.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

What makes you certain that Pope Benedict 16 is the successor of Peter? Maybe the real heresy was when the church wouldn’t listen to the claims that Martin Luther laid out and continued to practice in fashions contrary to eraly church teaching and scripture.

What makes you certain Pope Benedict 16 is not?

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

In being an ex-cradle Catholic, I can see that the largest problem here is that Catholicism teaches and brands into the minds of its faithful that the Roman Catholic church is THE one holy Catholic and apostolic church and that there is no other PERIOD! In being out of the church for over three years now, it has become clearer to me that this has caused a huge stumbling block in dialogues between Roman Catholics and other churches. I have even heard some of you claim that the Roman Catholic faith isn’t even a denomination. That is how poured into the concrete many Catholics believe that their church is the only church of Christ. However, I have come to know that many folks Catholic included would be considered one holy catholic and apostolic church. I know that many of you will disagree with me and that’s fine, but many others besides Roman Catholics are included in Christ’s one church.

Traveller,

I appreciate that fact that you now consider yourself an ex-Catholic because that is precisely what you are.

My second point…the RCC is not a denomination, it is the One True Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church. When Jesus founded the Catholic Church…it was the only Christian Church for 1517 years ergo the term Catholic applies to the Roman Catholic Church and not to the Churches founded after the Reformation. Those churchs are called 'Protestant". It is your arguments that are incorrect and unsupported by scripture.

Iowa Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Carol Coombe:

The issue is that the federation has grown, and it has held. What might have happened did not happen, and is not likely to happen.

In fact, according to a recent Macleans article (to which I cannot link because it is not online) developments in Quebec have served to splinter Canada further. Why? Because Quebec, in asserting its independence, has thought of and treated the rest of Canada as one unit – which it most assuredly is not.

Quite a bit of resentment exists in regions other than Quebec because those regions believe that Quebec has been demanding to be treated as distinct while not being willing to accord the same distinction to each of the other provinces.
Carol Coombe:

The analogy I made stands.

No. It is a faulty analogy. And off topic.

I posted this in reply to you a couple of days ago, but you have not responded:
Ani Ibi:

Not anymore. Canada has recognized that Quebec can be seen as Quebec in the international sphere.

Rather than addressing my response to you, you attempted to make a completely different point about separation. Quebec does not have to separate formally to be a ‘distinct society,’ nor a ‘nation’ within the Confederation.

Note, that the Reformers on the other hand did formally separate from the Church.

Quebec is recognized as a separate ‘nation’ within Canada. Moreover, there is a movement afoot in BC to recognize that we have three founding ‘nations,’ including the First Nations. Now there is considerably debate about every group clamouring for ‘nation’ status.

How is all of this informal distinctness ‘unity’?

I also earlier made reference to diverse peoples under one Family Compact. That was an irony meant to point out that diversity – for all its touted in the media – does not go far in the power circles of Canada.

Canada may be technically diverse but what good is it if diverse communities have little influence because they are a house divided?

The point is that the denominations are a house divided.

I also proposed that, just because many denominations split off from Church does not mean that they are necessary diverse.

In matters of doctrine, they are obviously diverse.

But how is that that for the good?

In matters of not recognizing the authority which Jesus vested in the Church, they are all the same.

How is that for the good?

Being all the same in this important aspect of the relationship does to equate to diversity. In fact it is a contradiction in terms.
Carol Coombe:

There has been little further talk, as far as I, a Canadian resident in Canada for two months each year, know because the economic consequences for the province would be egregous.

So you are an authority?

Saying that the economic consequences for separation would be egregious is catastrophizing without offering any evidence for same. But this is the subject of another thread which I suggest that you start.

Summary: your comparison of Canada to the Protestant denominations is a faulty analogy.
Carol Coombe:

I know that that concept confronts every principle of the supremacy of the Catholic Church and its ownership of the Absolute Truth. But I do believe that this is the way the world is moving, and our faith must move with it.

You have not responded to my reply to this which I repost hereunder:
Ani Ibi:

In other words, the world is right and, because the world is right the faith of all must follow the world. First step: please demonstrate that the world is right.

What you have proposed is moral relativism. You have done so by justifying moral relativism neither with logic nor with links.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

What you have proposed is moral relativism. You have done so by justifying moral relativism neither with logic nor with links.

Well said Ani,

Here we go again. Carol is clearly a relativist but what she either fails to understand or refuses to admit is that relativism contains no truths. Relativistic truth varies according to the culture, individual, fad, etc.
The RCC Truth is founded in Christ not cultures, not individual perceptions and doesn’t change to accomodate the whims of man.

Originally Posted by Carol Coombe
I know that that concept confronts every principle of the supremacy of the Catholic Church and its ownership of the Absolute Truth. But I do believe that this is the way the world is moving, and our faith must move with it.

Carol wants to be a Catholic based upon her truths not Christ’s Truths as reveiled through his Church. The problem becomes that being a Catholic is more than a label. Below I lifted a quote from one of Janet S’ posts, people who share Carols view of truth should take heed.

“How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error. Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching’, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
4/18/05

To be a Catholic is to embrace it’s beliefs.

Iowa Mike

Iowa Mike

 

[Contarini]

Well said Ani,

Here we go again. Carol is clearly a relativist

You clearly like to throw around labels too much. I have not heard Carol say that there is no absolute truth. I have heard her suggest that Catholicism defines truth too closely and is too obsessed with “doctrinal minutiae.”

Edwin

 

[MelanieAnne]

Far too often these days, when people seek to find a church “home” they look for “a pastor who gives a good sermon” or a church where the belief structure is more-or-less consistent with their own beliefs. BUT THIS IS BACKWARDS.

As Christians, it is not up to God to conform Himself to us, to our ideas and desires. It is up to us to conform ourself to God. Is this always easy? No! But that’s just the way it is. God is GOD and we are His creation. It’s not up to us to set the ground rules. It we are very arrogant to think otherwise.

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you think it through logically.

Melanie

 

[Harsalter]

If Protestantism and all its many fragmentations hasn’t destroyed Christianity or the Catholic Church yet, it probably isn’t going to happen.

“On this rock i will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” [Jesus/Matthew 16:18]

True. Very true! But protestants dominate America for only one reason. They were born into the faith. They don’t know any better. I was in the same boat as my father was a southern baptist minister.

Man, I sleep so much better after leaving the southern baptist faith, and now have the sacrament of confession. Without, I would have ended up in hell.

And right before my dad died, he admitted that he only stayed a southern baptist after reading the early church fathers because he didn’t want to lose his livelihood of being a paid pastor. But he knew he was in the wrong faith, but couldn’t convert because of finances. I have been told he made a death bed conversion. If so, he was lucky. I like to think he did.

I was also stubborn in converting, but I didn’t wait that long.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

You clearly like to throw around labels too much. I have not heard Carol say that there is no absolute truth. I have heard her suggest that Catholicism defines truth too closely and is too obsessed with “doctrinal minutiae.”

Edwin

I’m still waiting to find out what “absolute truths”. Go back and read her posts.

Iowa Mike

 

[Harsalter]

Here we go again referring to the church as a she… It disgusts me!

St. Cyprien, “You can’t have God as your Father if you refuse to have the Church as your Mother”.

Dr Scott Hahn on ‘Letter and Spirit’ on EWTN 04-23-07

But then, traveller1534 has left the building.

 

[jmcrae]

As Christians, it is not up to God to conform Himself to us, to our ideas and desires. It is up to us to conform ourself to God.

Thank you. That’s worth repeating. We don’t conform God into our image - rather, we must conform ourselves into His image.