Do you believe there is one true church?

[ehscott]

Amen to that. I would say the when Jesus said do not hinder the little children he wasn’t conveying the idea of sexually abusing them to keep from hindering them. How sad can it be that the person in the place of Christ (the priest) would pray on children in such a way. I would never subject my 3 year old son to this atrocity nor should anyone with any good sense regardless of the ridiculous infallible claims of the church! This is trully an abomination of God in the purest and most potent form!

What always amazes me about people who want to negate the validity of the Catholic Church based on the sins of a few is their inability to understand that their argument is vacuous. Do we negate the validity of our public school system because of the multitude of teacher’s abusing students? Does every Protestant denomination where a minister or other church employee abuses a child or engages in immoral behavior negate the validity of the entire congregation? Why anti-Catholics don’t see the incongruity and intellectual dishonesty is beyond me…well, actually it isn’t. When you don’t have the facts, pound the table…

 

[ehscott]

Do you know all the wars fought over religion? all of the homosexuals killed from religion induced hatred and bigotry?

And Catholicism is a persons ideas just like any of those religions you stated.

Its ridiculos how many people are dying over something we have as little factual knowledge of as we do imps or fairys.

And when I stated our own theories I meant our OWN not something were going to recruit people to and kill ourselves over

Actually there is significant historical record that proves the validity of Christianity, both direct and anecdotal. The least you could do is make an honest evaluation of the historical merits of Christianity before you put it into the category of imps or fairies. You may choose not to believe but I think an honest look at the historical record would at least bring you to the point of agreeing that there is reason to support the concept of Christianity. If you are so set in your thinking on that issue then there is no hope in engaging you on the others.

 

[guanophore]

By the way, do you know what the topic of this thread is?

It seems to me that you have used this thread as a jumping off point to go off topic whenever it suits you – as opposed to whenever it suits the discussion – and have gone down a staggeringly long list of strawmen accusations against the Church all of which have been posted with virtually no reference to any evidence whatsoever.

Waddupwidat and where do you get this stuff from? If you have the energy to read such far out mythology, then why do you not have the energy to do some serious – and fair – investigation? Where are your priorities?

Moreover why on earth do you expect us to go on rabbit chases for you so that you can have links to articles and teachings which you can then decline to address? Waddupwidat? What do you hope to gain by this behaviour?

And your church has no lies and deceit? Or did you like the style of lies and deceit in your church better? What – no flies on you guys? May we now return to the topic of the thread please?

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.

 

[guanophore]

As a protestant, i would agree with you. But contradict to it, it is also the CC who deny protestant as heresy…haha…where is the logic…everything is all Catholic say:shrug:

In order to be a heretic, one must know the truth, then willfully turn to it. Most protestants have no idea that what they were taught is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus, and therefore, cannot really qualify for the term “heretic”.

 

[Chancellare]

In order to be a heretic, one must know the truth, then willfully turn to it. Most protestants have no idea that what they were taught is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus, and therefore, cannot really qualify for the term “heretic”.

I agree for cases where they don’t know any better. But after reading CAF, those who have read the posts and the CC stand on the matter should know by now. So they are no longer excused.

 

[guanophore]

I agree for cases where they don’t know any better. But after reading CAF, those who have read the posts and the CC stand on the matter should know by now. So they are no longer excused.

I cannot argue with that! There does seem to be an extrordinary degree of oppositionality , defiance, refusal of authority, and even mocking here at times. I think the forum tends to draw folks like that. On the other hand, if they were not trying to work out issues, they wouldn’t BE here! All of us know, intuitively, the Jesus did not want denominations, and it is our lack of love that separates and wounds His body.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

On the other hand, if they were not trying to work out issues, they wouldn’t BE here!

Not necessarily true. Some might be trying to work out issues. Some might be trying to convert us. Some might be trying to test their mettle against some serious Catholic apologists. Some might be trying to vent their rage against the most available authority figure. Some might be seeking shelter from a storm. Some might be trying to make friends. Lots of reasons to be here. Some degree of discernment is always useful and the form which that can most obviously take is simply to clarify with a person what benefit they hope to derive from CA.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

In order to be a heretic, one must know the truth, then willfully turn to it. Most protestants have no idea that what they were taught is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus, and therefore, cannot really qualify for the term “heretic”.

Agreed. I have to run so don’t have to time to post links to other terminology. Perhaps others can?

Luther, however, was a Catholic at the time he erred. And for that and many other reasons, Luther is considered by the Church to have been a heretic.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

Fair enough. I will respond to this.

We can know errant individuals in the Church by their fruits. And certainly those who were responsible for the abuse of children are no exception to this. They merit discipline and correction. And their victims merit our healing outreach.

We can know the Church, on the other hand, by Her fruits. How many of us can thoroughly attest to the fruits of Magisterial Truth? How many of us can attest to the enormous loving and sacrificial outreach which the Church has done and continues to do from the Spirit of the Social Gospel?

How many of us actually know? This deserves a new thread. And I will take care of that when I get back this evening.

However, I wish to shed light on the difference between the Church Herself and some folks in the Church who are disobedient to the Spirit of Righteousness and Goodness which the Church always holds out.

I believe that it is critical to healing that this distinction be made.

An analogy is this: some radical feminists blame the whole ‘male patriarchy’ for domestic abuse. First of all I don’t call it domestic abuse. I call it home torture. Second of all, taking grape shot at everyone – including those who love us, have our best interests at heart, wouldn’t hurt a fly – does not help us to heal. It keeps us in a blaming position which allocates the power for healing outside our relationship between

ourselves and
Jesus.

Yes, demonic forces attack our ability to trust. Trust is the issue here, not doctrine.

 

[distracted]

well I guess you are in a state of extreme or should I call it magisterial denial about the travesties that MANY priests in your church have caused. If the numbers are so many less than other churches, then show me who else has over a billion dollars in lawsuits pending for sexually abusing children???

Maybe you were the one i said this to b4, but whatever…

There are more incidents of pedophilia in the Protestant churches than in the Catholic - twice as many, actually & i heard that from 2 different, reliable sources (reliable being the only kind i acknowledge…). As the Poster said, the reason the Catholic Church gets attacked is because people smell money there. Also, the media despises the Catholic Church and loves to write stories about that kind of thing. Its like the liberal media likes to say: See, those Catholics aren’t any better than we are? (journalists are usually pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, etc…).
When priests are sacrificing their lives to spread the faith in barbaric countries (the U.S. being one ), help the poor, fight abortion, etc. etc… where is the media??

 

[Ani_Ibi]

shadow_fire:

Do you know all the wars fought over religion?

I’ve just finished posting a list of links debunking this gratuitous and unfounded preconceived notion. Consider the incentive of grabbing land and resources as an incentive for war. That usually is a secular incentive.

If you have a point to make, then please consider the following:

• Is your point on topic?
• Do you know the Church’s official position on the point you are trying to make? Have you even read it?
• What support do you have to offer us on your point of view? Anything? Nothing?
• What benefit do you hope to derive from CA? Learning or lecturing? Are you willing to be up front about it?

If your posts demonstrate that you have not bothered to consider any other point of view than your own then that, in my opinion, constitutes opinion only – and there are many other posts which are better thought out and better supported that would imho expand my knowledge and faith.

shadow_fire:

And Catholicism is a persons ideas just like any of those religions you stated.

No reference given. Just your opinion. The Person by the way to whom you refer is Jesus Himself and so Catholicism is not, in fact, ‘like any of those religions.’

shadow_fire:

Its ridiculos how many people are dying over something we have as little factual knowledge of as we do imps or fairys.

Indeed it is. Before casting aspersions on other folks, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us how much factual knowledge you have? Moreover, in considering your own accusations against others please do take a moment to also consider the following:

http://www3.sdstate.edu/ClassLibrary/Page/Images/Data/2964.jpg
http://www.appliancist.com/electric-tea-kettle-philips-cubic-design.jpg

 

[Safe_Eagle]

YES!!!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

guanophore:

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.

I have started a new thread on the Non-Catholic forum:
Pilot project on CA: pastoral care forum for those with grievances against the Church?

First of all, not all of us have the same background information on all the posters who have grievances against the Church.

So sometimes it is difficult for us to discern from among those who are hurting, those who are acting out peer group identification behaviour, those who are displacing anger from somewhere else onto the always convenient and everpresent authority figure of the Church, those who only need more information, those who have difficulty articulating what their questions are, and so on.

There are lots of different reasons for having grievances against the Church. Particularly in the era of an anti-Church media and popular culture.

Second of all, I thought it might be helpful for us to listen to each other in terms of how we identify these communication problems as well as what we might do to solve them.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I am wondering if this thread has wandered off its initial important concern, and whether the current discussion should be moved to another thread. It is a traumatic debate for Catholics themselves, no?

As far as I can see, there has been a failure on this thread perhaps to define one true church. There are two apparent and not incompatible definitions: (1) the universal church, that is the body of Christ; and (2) the Church of Rome, derived from Christ’s instructions to his disciples and apostles.

I think that before more damage is done to our common faith in Christ and in each other, it is important to take this into account.

Let me try to make a start, and the move on to a consideration of the Reformation, Counter-Reformations and their implications

What do we know about the origin of Christ’s church on earth?

1. Christ died and descended into hell/Hades/other (we have few opinions on this and many are unsure about this phase of his Passion).
2. Christ rose and redeemed our sins by his resurrection.
3. Christ ascended into heaven to be with his Father.
4. Before his ascension, Christ left the keys to his earthly kingdom with Peter and the apostles.

What can we say about changes in Christ’s church on earth?

1. The church Christ established was the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (see Nicene Creed 325CE), that is the universal church of the body of Christ.
2. When he gave authority to Peter, Christ – being divine – knew there would be dissension and schism in the church he established, and in fact this started before 100 CE.
3. These dissensions started early (Albigensian heresies, Angevin Schism, Manichean heterodoxy) and continue to this day – among various orders/formations, between left and right wings of the universal church, and between its denominations.
4. Early in the history of the Church, at least until 1034 and the schism between Roman Catholicism and the Orthodoxy of Constantinople, dissension was contained within the church organisation. This relatively high degree of unit among Christians was desirable and effective in pressing their mission.
5. By the Middle Ages however, early unity began to crumble as the Church grew in disparate cultures and far-flung geographical areas, and as politics, economics and power influenced religious systems more and more.
6. At the same time, dishonesty, simony, usury, financial and moral corruption, fallible interpretations, faulty doctrine, violence and warfare infused the policy and practice of the core of the universal church established by Christ and its hierarchy.
7. We need to bear in mind that Christ ***knew ***this would happen. Those who ascribe to the concept of miracles might have expected he would have intervened at this point, to ‘save’ and stabilise his church. He did not choose to do so in the miraculous way some Christians would perhaps have expected.
8. Instead, to reform the exactions of the church, to reform perceived errors of doctrine, and to reform the morals of society became – more or less – the aims of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
9. The protestant movement particularly reacted against scholastic subtlety, theological speculation, the language used by traditional thinkers about (for example) the Trinity, and to the authority of the Church of Rome at times exercised by lawyers through the public courts.
10. Protestantism encouraged reform within the Catholic Church (as we can now call it), giving it a new edge to cut through vested interests and administrative conservatism, a new dynamism, an affection for ancient ways and a deep mistrust of protestant ways.

Continued 2
Carol Coombe

 

[Sixtus]

Do you believe there is one true church?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Coombe # 2

1. Christians, baptised in Christ, and later to be known as Calvinists, Lutherans, Quakers, Anglicans, Huguenots, Baptists, Mennonites, Methodists, Presbyterians, Puritans, Hutterites, Unitarians separated from the Church of Rome (itself separated from Eastern Orthodoxy and the Coptic Church, for example) : ‘God useth the common people and the multitude to proclaim that the Lord God omnipotent reigneth; as when Christ came at first, the poor receive the Gospel, not many wise, not many noble, not many rich, but the poor’. The reform movement threw up its share of martyrs: Mantz, Blaurock, Junius, Servetus inter alia.
2. The medieval Church of Rome contained a wide range of opinion about reform – moving towards protestantism or fighting the protestant movement, refusing all concessions, adhering to devotion in medieval tradition, and strengthening the authority of the hierarchy. In general, the Counter-Reformation reflected victory of the conservative-militant faction over the the liberal.
3. Thus did the new or reformed universal church of Christ become established – through schism and reform, review and renewal of interpretation and doctrine, resulting in even more variations of early mainline Christian denominations (including RCC and Eastern Orthodoxy).

What observations might be made as a result of these events?

1. Christ was perhaps the first democrat, who despised authority save that of his Father, and his earthly mother.
2. 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.
3. Christ did not intervene at any point in the history of his universal church when secession threatened and actually occurred.
4. The Reformation, uncontrollable, resulted in separation with two principal results: a range of relatively liberal mainline Christian denominations of fierce faith; and the Counter-Reformation within RCC which strengthened, stabilised and empowered a declining institution. The universal church of Christ benefited from the close scrutiny of traditional faith, doctrine, belief and practice.
5. There is no doubt that latterly, since say 1960, numerous ‘off the wall’ sects and evangelical congregations focussing on particular themes – being born again, amassing wealth, ascribing to the most fundamental tenets of the faith with possible psychological impact on adherents – have thrown themselves up. The World Council of Churches provides some control. One might look on many such churches with equanimity in that they provide spiritual comfort of a kind for congregants. Christ knows; he has chosen not to strike them down; he sets his example of tolerance.
6. Likewise, as the Vatican II proposed in *Dogmatic Constitution Chap 16, *members of other faiths are not denied the love of God.
7. At the end of the day, it is perhaps possible to conclude with an allegory. One tall oak tree in the middle of a meadow is likely to be struck down by lightning from nowhere; nibbled at by critters; prone to disease within and without; or killed by the axmen so the meadow may be planted prosaically with rapeseed to make cooking oil. On the other hand, a forest of oak trees, propagated from the original but growing vitally and independently, is less likely to suffer any of these fates.

This is the universal church of Christ, His Body, His great power: one holy catholic and apostolic church.

CEC
Pretoria

 

[jmcrae]

1. Protestantism encouraged reform within the Catholic Church (as we can now call it), giving it a new edge to cut through vested interests and administrative conservatism, a new dynamism, an affection for ancient ways and a deep mistrust of protestant ways.

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.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

This may have been the aim (I’m not sure that it’s what the original Reformers were thinking…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.

It is perfectly correct to suggest that the protestant movement encouraged reform within RCC, which supervised its own Counter-Reformation, which is why the Counter-Reformation is called, historically, the Counter-Reformation.

 

[jmcrae]

It is perfectly correct to suggest that the protestant movement encouraged reform within RCC, which supervised its own Counter-Reformation, which is why the Counter-Reformation is called, historically, the Counter-Reformation.

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?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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?

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.