Do you believe there is one true church?

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

Because Christ is omniscient, knows the future, he must have known there would be a fragmentation of His universal church on earth. He did not try to stop it by intervening to prevent schism. So why is it fragmented still.?

Perhaps because the defiance and mocking is not all on one side, sadly. I would not put myself or my spirit in the hands of many people on this thread, protestant or Catholic. Would you? But it is particularly the certainty of members of CC that they are in every case, circumstance, interpretation, rite, doctrine, dogma, dictat (etc etc you get the idea) absolutely correct and servants and purveyors of the Absolute Truth (absolutely unproveable), and the way in which that certainty is presented to us all, that is difficult to engage with. And we are all aware of that.

Yes, Christ is wounded, and his sorrow is manifest to all of us in our spiritual lives.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

I hesitate to ask, but I would be interested in knowing where your obsession with Luther comes from? He seems to symbolise the entire period of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation for you. There is a much broader and far more complex picture to be painted here, and many more figures of central importance to the schism within the Roman Church. Perhaps it would help us all if you could elaborate slightly beyond this one figure.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

YES!!!

Which one - the universal church of Christ - his body - or the Catholic Church. Please explain. A simple enthusiastic YES! is not an answer.

 

[jmcrae]

It is not correct to say that ‘protestants have no idea that what they were taught is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus’. This is a gross generalisation, and not worthy of your usual insights.

If it’s not true, then they are deliberately in error, which is worse than being in error by accident.

Protestants have their own views about the teaching of Jesus which at times corroborates the interpretation of the Catholic Church, and at times diverges from it. There are reasons for that, particularly when one assumes that divine inspiration is not limited in any way to the Magisterium of the CC.

The Divine Revelation comes from Christ through the Apostles to their successors - who just happen to be the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Non-Catholic Christians ***might ***get into Heaven. BUT…they’ll probably have to do time in Purgatory for their heresy and schisms. Those whose traditions have institutionalized sin, such as the Mormons, but be directed ‘downstairs’, forever, straight-away. Sorry.

As I noted above, Christians of the protestant persuasion are not persuaded about the existence of purgatory, which must therefore be populated by Catholics only.

 

[jmcrae]

Because Christ is omniscient, knows the future, he must have known there would be a fragmentation of His universal church on earth. He did not try to stop it by intervening to prevent schism.

Probably for the same reason that He let the unbelieving disciples go their way, in John 6:67, without saying, “Hey, wait! If that’s too hard for you, I can make it easier!”

 

[jmcrae]

As I noted above, Christians of the protestant persuasion are not persuaded about the existence of purgatory, which must therefore be populated by Catholics only.

Just because you don’t believe something exists, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t - or that you won’t go there. After all, there are plenty of people in Hell who never even knew there was an Afterlife.

Reminds me of a kid I went to school with, who didn’t believe that the principal really had a big leather strap … uch: :crying:

 

[Harsalter]

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

30,000 choices to be wrong? Only thing I can think of.

 

[jmcrae]

30,000 choices to be wrong? Only thing I can think of.

 

[cckz7]

I see you are a new member. I have run the gauntlet during the past month, and barely made it past the trauma. I am not sure why I am still posting. Be strong, be courageous, ignore spiteful infighting, and look for the truths that are present everywhere for the looking. And try not to give up.

Love from Carol

That is what i believe in. I’ve been attacked so many times for my Catholic beliefs (while outside this forum), the negativity here is, well, just something to take in stride…
Even so, it kind of makes a person wonder… Are people leaving true Christianity behind when they take it upon themselves to discuss and define what true Christianity is??
I mean, Jesus said the greatest commandment wasto love God and the 2nd greatest was (is) to love your neighber AS yourself…
“Love others as i have loved you.”
[OK… so i know its impossible… but thats beside the point… ]

 

[Contarini]

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

And apparently you did not check the date–1551, five years after Luther was dead. Just how was Luther going to come to Trent in 1551? Did you think the safe-conduct of the Ecumenical Council had the power to raise him from the grave?

Furthermore, by 1551 Protestant-Catholic trust had so completely eroded that Protestants would have been suspicious of the safe-conduct, and the Council would have had no interest in actually hearing their opinions. After all, Protestant ideas on key issues such as justification had already been condemned in earlier sessions of the Council. The purpose of the invitation was to gain greater legitimacy for the Council and primarily to satisfy the Emperor, who was trying to maintain the religious unity of the HRE.

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.

Luther’s *Babylonian Captivity *(1520) denied that marriage, confirmation, holy orders, and extreme unction were sacraments; it demanded communion in both kinds as an inalienable right of all Christians; it denounced transubstantiation as a monstrous absurdity with roots in pagan philosophy and taught that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the consecration; it called the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice a blasphemous attempt to offer something to God instead of receiving it from Him; it denied that baptismal grace was lost through serious sin and had to be restored through penance as the “second plank”; it denied that the sacraments of the New Law work in a more efficacious manner than those of the Old; it taught that what saves in baptism is “faith in the word of promise, to which baptism is added”; it denied that ecclesiastical law (fasting regulations, for instance) was binding on the conscience; it denounced monastic vows (indeed vows of all kinds except for the baptismal vows); it taught that faith and not contrition per se was the means by which sins were forgiven; it denied that penitents had to confess all their mortal sins; and it taught that in principle any baptized Christian could administer any sacrament (“priesthood of all believers”), although as a matter of good order only ordained clergy should do so.

Are you seriously claiming that all these were orthodox Catholic teachings in 1521?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

Fair enough–I should have said, “The Council of Constance had handed Hus over to the emperor to be burned.” My point remains exactly the same.

In those days, heretics were seen as being a threat to the stability of the state…If heresy was considered treason…

It wasn’t. Treason was a separate crime with a separate punishment. Of course people could be executed as traitors for religious reasons (as the Catholic martyrs of England were). People could also be executed for blasphemy–which, again, was separate from heresy. And technically I think sedition may have been separate from treason as well, though I’m not sure.

Edwin

 

[cckz7]

Maybe no time for thinking either? Protestants do not believe in purgatory, so it must be populated solely by Catholics. Sad. Our heavenly Father waits.

It doesn’t naturally follow that because people make short statements, even those lacking in “eloquence”, that they don’t think b4 they make them…

Some people do an awful lot of thinking, researching, studying, meditating, etc… Then, they get to a point where they dont have to do that much “studying” anymore (they are satisfied that they learned what they needed/wanted to learn) and are content to keep things “simple”…

I can relate… For one thing, i got tired of always studying Christianity. There comes a time when it is more important to just live it… When i go visit Jesus @ the Church, i don’t want to “study” him… I just want to be with Him for as long as possible… and let him do what he will with me…

 

[jmcrae]

And apparently you did not check the date–1551, five years after Luther was dead. Just how was Luther going to come to Trent in 1551? Did you think the safe-conduct of the Ecumenical Council had the power to raise him from the grave?

Furthermore, by 1551 Protestant-Catholic trust had so completely eroded that Protestants would have been suspicious of the safe-conduct, and the Council would have had no interest in actually hearing their opinions. After all, Protestant ideas on key issues such as justification had already been condemned in earlier sessions of the Council. The purpose of the invitation was to gain greater legitimacy for the Council and primarily to satisfy the Emperor, who was trying to maintain the religious unity of the HRE.

Luther’s *Babylonian Captivity *(1520) denied that marriage, confirmation, holy orders, and extreme unction were sacraments; it demanded communion in both kinds as an inalienable right of all Christians; it denounced transubstantiation as a monstrous absurdity with roots in pagan philosophy and taught that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the consecration; it called the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice a blasphemous attempt to offer something to God instead of receiving it from Him; it denied that baptismal grace was lost through serious sin and had to be restored through penance as the “second plank”; it denied that the sacraments of the New Law work in a more efficacious manner than those of the Old; it taught that what saves in baptism is “faith in the word of promise, to which baptism is added”; it denied that ecclesiastical law (fasting regulations, for instance) was binding on the conscience; it denounced monastic vows (indeed vows of all kinds except for the baptismal vows); it taught that faith and not contrition per se was the means by which sins were forgiven; it denied that penitents had to confess all their mortal sins; and it taught that in principle any baptized Christian could administer any sacrament (“priesthood of all believers”), although as a matter of good order only ordained clergy should do so.

Are you seriously claiming that all these were orthodox Catholic teachings in 1521?

Edwin

Okay, I give - he was definitely a heretic if he was teaching that in 1517 -1521, at the time that he left the Church. I had been under the impression that he didn’t fall into heresy until after he had left the Church. My bad.

 

[cckz7]

Fair enough–I should have said, “The Council of Constance had handed Hus over to the emperor to be burned.” My point remains exactly the same.

It wasn’t. Treason was a separate crime with a separate punishment. Of course people could be executed as traitors for religious reasons (as the Catholic martyrs of England were). People could also be executed for blasphemy–which, again, was separate from heresy. And technically I think sedition may have been separate from treason as well, though I’m not sure.

Edwin

I’m not sure i agree with you. From my understanding, being against the state (heresy) was the same as treason… Are there any priests on the forum who can say for sure?

 

[Contarini]

I’m not sure i agree with you. From my understanding, being against the state (heresy) was the same as treason

Heresy was not “being against the state.” Heresy was obstinately denying a teaching of the Church. It was punished by the state. Of course the state thought that heresy was a threat to society, but so is every crime, by definition. By your logic, every crime is really treason, which makes no sense.

Edwin

 

[cckz7]

As I noted above, Christians of the protestant persuasion are not persuaded about the existence of purgatory, which must therefore be populated by Catholics only.

That’s like getting in a car on your way to New Orleans, while atthe same time, believing New Orleans does not exist…

I think it was Sister Faustina (it was at least one saint) who had a vision of Hell and said that many who are there didn’t believe in Hell…

 

[Contarini]

Okay, I give - he was definitely a heretic if he was teaching that in 1517 -1521, at the time that he left the Church. I had been under the impression that he didn’t fall into heresy until after he had left the Church. My bad.

The Babylonian Captivity was published in 1520, and is probably the point at which Luther clearly set himself against the teachings of the Church. Up to that time, there were people who were willing to argue that he was simply challenging certain papalist interpretations of Catholic teaching, etc. Cardinal Glapion said at Worms in 1521 that all the other issues raised by Luther could be resolved, but the *Captivity *had to be recanted. Glapion was more moderate than many of Luther’s opponents, which is why his testimony is important (i.e., many others would have said that Luther was a heretic long before that, but clearly at least some highly placed Catholics thought otherwise).

Edwin

 

[Carol_Coombe]

30,000 choices to be wrong? Only thing I can think of.

The number 30,000 is quoted many many times. I wonder if you could tell me where it originated? I have asked before, and commented on it, but I have not had an answer. I suspect it is somewhat overinflated and unsubstantiated, but I may be wrong.

Yes, protestant or reformed churches do have many chances to be wrong; they also have many chances to be right - and the Catholic Church recognises that. And just think: they have a choice according to informed conscience.

It does not seem to me to be all bad.

 

[jmcrae]

The number 30,000 is quoted many many times. I wonder if you could tell me where it originated? I have asked before, and commented on it, but I have not had an answer. I suspect it is somewhat overinflated and unsubstantiated, but I may be wrong.

It comes from a book of statistics that also claims that the Catholic Church has over 300 denominations. The reason is that it counts each country as a separate denomination - meaning that it’s probably not quite as inaccurate with regard to the Protestant denominations, since Protestantism does tend to be divided along national borders - the Episcopal Church in the USA is not, in fact, the same denomination as the Anglican Church in Canada, which is not the same denomination as the Anglican Church of England, and so on, since their “highest ups” are, in fact, the national Bishop’s committee, and not Queen Elizabeth II, which is what one would think. Although I have noticed in our partner Anglican Church that they do put up pictures of the Queen in much the same way that we put up pictures of the Pope.

Yes, protestant or reformed churches do have many chances to be wrong; they also have many chances to be right - and the Catholic Church recognises that. And just think: they have a choice according to informed conscience.

Could you say that again in a simpler way? I’m afraid I don’t know what it means. (The choice of an informed conscience is to do the right thing. I’m not sure what that has to do with Protestantism, or how Protestantism could ever be a right choice.)