Do you believe there is one true church?

[Harsalter]

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

We are created in God’s image, so we actually ‘deform’ ourselves with sin.

 

[jmcrae]

We are created in God’s image, so we actually ‘deform’ ourselves with sin.

A friend of mine from Church says that we can be conformed into God’s image in one of two ways: we can sin and then have our sins chipped off one by one with God’s hammer and chisel - this is the painful way.

Or, we can be molded by Mary, by following her way of simplicity and humility - that is, melted in the high heat of humility and then poured ever so gently into her outline. This is the easy way.

 

[rando78]

“Our”?

Do you have any evidence for this strange point of view? Care to share it with us?

Maybe “the” would have been better used instead to “our.” That might have come out of refering to all of us who have a part in belonging to the Church. I’ll try to use my words better in the future. I’m only human though. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

 

[guanophore]

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]

That was Carol. She seems to be saying that we need to flex with the world, and go with the flow of society, or else we will become extinct, or at least irrelvant.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Originally Posted by guanophore forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Originally Posted by Carol Coombe There would be many kinds of Christians; 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.

Reply by Guanophore/reaction by Carol Coombe
G: I think this is an accurate description of the current state of events. C: No, it is not accurate now because there is no unified church of Christ, no unified Christendom, and Catholics believe that this can only be achieved if everyone with a different take on Christ’s life and mission, lodged themselves under the wings of the Catholic Church.

… various ‘denominations’ within the Catholic Church itself and there are, American Catholics, Russian Orthodox Catholics, Philippine Catholics, French Catholics, Brazilian Catholics.

Doctrinally, they are identical, or they are not Catholic. Ethnically and culturally, hopefully not! They may or may not be doctrinally identical (although I suspect there are variations in their take on doctrine and its application), and that is in part because their take is infused with their culture.

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 differences 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. Yebo, I think we agree. But what would we call ‘sects’ or ‘denominations’ or ‘leanings’ within the Catholic Church eg liberal as opposed to fundamentalist? And although I know in theory how Catholic Teaching is transmitted, I see that that does not always, or even most of the time, apply in practice. The stretch from the Vatican to the individual priest is long; priests and bishops vary as to ethnicity, personality, management capacity, and intelligence. When I say that the Catholic Church is not monolithic, I really mean it.

This is not a question of ethnic-related belief.

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. I feel stupid because I am not sure how people are using the word relative or relativism, or even if everyone who uses it, uses it the same.

…2

 

[Carol_Coombe]

…2

*We are talking about Christendom being able to speak to men and women everywhere. If faith is to move the world, it must move with the world. *

Only in doctrine. In fact, I think where the Church has gotten into the most trouble is trying to “move with the world”. I know that lots of people think the Church has remained faithful to the original principles and understandings of Christianity established within the first century after His death. But it has also reacted with tremendous vigour to heresies, schisms, tendencies and other challenges from inside and outside the Church and its doctrine. It is inevitable that the Church has changed as a result. We see the Church adjusting simply between the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI – their focus, their style, their priorities, and their interpretation of doctrine and its subsequent application. And if you take the papacies from early 1900s, you will see the change is dramatic. Doctrine may change slowly, but practice changes rapidly if necessary.
*

That will happen only if we do not work cooperatively, in community of love and compassion, willingness and courage.

*I think the foundation is Christ. Whatever humanistic motives and efforts we have will ultimately only have a limited effect unless they are grounded in the person of Christ. If Christ is in us, and we are in Christ, this is what will happen. Yes He is the foundation, our rock. I would go beyond that however, to suggest as before, that Hindus, Buddhists and others are worthy of our respect, and that we must work with them without judgement, or perish as Christians.
*

you can be 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 you can work with others 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. I would agree with you absolutely in most aspects here. Let us work with all others working for good; let us understand that many are willing to work with us; let us understand that it is the right of each individual to choose their own beliefs according to their own needs; and let us understand that this is God’s work, his wonderfully diverse world which would work if it were based on His Love.

The idea that each individual is imbued with a spark of the divine (ie the soul or spirit) which returns to God at death, and that therefore each of us in equally divine in God’s eyes, came from the great Quakers. It is an idea that is not outside RCIA teaching, at least here. But yes, that does not mean that anyone can become fully human like Christ, who is the only one blessed with that nature. But we are all working towards greater humanity according to his teachings and his example.

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’

*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 naturally through our connection in Him. Yes, everything Christ taught leads to this conclusion. But on this Forum it leads me particularly to conclude that the argument we must all become members of the Catholic Church does not follow from His teachings, or what we have observed above.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

That was Carol. She seems to be saying that we need to flex with the world, and go with the flow of society, or else we will become extinct, or at least irrelvant.

Nah, that was not me. Guanophore says the whole world is doomed ultimately, and even I would not subscribe to that!

What I suggested - and it is what other Christians are saying - is that we are possibly moving towards a greater spirituality in our understanding of Christianity, and that church hierarchies and organisations as we now understand them will change substantially and even fade away in some cases.

There are subtle distinctions between being doomed and moving to new understandings of our inherent Christianity.

I am always surprised that I do not see any evidence that anyone has been reading Merton, Nolan, Nouwen, Vanier, Rolheiser, all devout Catholics. They are suitable candidates for evidence, but people stick to the same Biblical interpretations. Even if people looked at and quoted the book that I recommended out of the Vatican (imprimere) on how to read the Bible, I think there would some surprise at the difference between that official publication and some of the views put before this thread.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Carol Coombe;2138507

Carol,

From Guan:

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.

From Carol:

I would agree with you absolutely in most aspects here. Let us work with all others working for good; let us understand that many are willing to work with us; let us understand that it is the right of each individual to choose their own beliefs according to their own needs; and let us understand that this is God’s work, his wonderfully diverse world which would work if it were based on His Love.

Of course people can choose whatever beliefs they want and I will respect their ‘free will’ right to do so. However, that doesn’t mean I subscribe to their views or am willing to set aside my own beliefs or will not evangelize.

/From Carol:

I feel stupid because I am not sure how people are using the word relative or relativism, or even if everyone who uses it, uses it the same.

Hopefully this will help:

Collins devines realtivism as,

“any theory holding that truth or moral value, etc., is not universal or absolute but may vary between individuals or cultures.”

Take a look at Pope Benedicts warning about the dictatorship of relativism:

Quote:
“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

Since you believe in the right of each individual to choose their own beliefs according to their own needs; and want everyone to believe that this is God’s work, his wonderfully diverse world which would work if it were based on His Love; then it follows that you think:

• If a person believes in abortion…then it’s OK with God.
• If another believes in euthanasia …then it’s OK with God.
• If another believes in divorce, then it’s OK with God.
• If another believes in contraception, then it’s OK with God.
• If another rejects the doctrines of the RCC, it’s OK with God
• If another believes in mysticism, it’s OK with God.
• If another doesn’t believe in anything, it’s OK with God.
• If people change their beliefs based upon events, culture, it’s OK with God.

In an earlier post you said that the distance from the Pope to the local priest is very, very, very long. Well, I’d say it’s a short putt as compared to distance between the Catholic Faith and your understanding of it.

In your posts you seem to oppose most Church teachings. Perhaps it would help if you explained why you want to join a Church and what Church teachings and doctrines you actually believe.

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by guanophore forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Reply by Guanophore/reaction by Carol Coombe
G: I think this is an accurate description of the current state of events.

No, it is not accurate now because there is no unified church of Christ, no unified Christendom,

I thought your whole point was that this is not necessary? I thought you were promoting that there SHOULD be diversity, and that it is not necessary or recommended for Christendom to be part of the same visible organization?

and Catholics believe that this can only be achieved if everyone with a different take on Christ’s life and mission, lodged themselves under the wings of the Catholic Church.

I don’t think the sticking point is so much Christ’s life and mission. I think the sticking point is the teachings, and they relate more critically to who He is, who His FAther is, and who we are in relation to them. Is that the same thing as life and mission?

Doctrinally, they are identical, or they are not Catholic. Ethnically and culturally, hopefully not!

They may or may not be doctrinally identical (although I suspect there are variations in their take on doctrine and its application), and that is in part because their take is infused with their culture.

I think that Jesus taught principles that could infuse all cultures.

That is why I don’t think Catholic communities are not 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.

Yebo, I think we agree. But what would we call ‘sects’ or ‘denominations’ or ‘leanings’ within the Catholic Church eg liberal as opposed to fundamentalist? And although I know in theory how Catholic Teaching is transmitted, I see that that does not always, or even most of the time, apply in practice. The stretch from the Vatican to the individual priest is long; priests and bishops vary as to ethnicity, personality, management capacity, and intelligence. When I say that the Catholic Church is not monolithic, I really mean it.

I agree. I think if that stretch were not so long, and priests could not get out of order, the reformation would never have occurred. It is easy to see that, in the Eastern Church, where bishops were able to keep strict Orthodoxy in their communities, there was no reformation.

I am suspicious of relativism becoming the standard, instead of the Teachings of Christ as handed on through the Apostles.

I am not sure how people are using the word relative or relativism, or even if everyone who uses it, uses it the same.

This is a good point, and perhaps should be defined for the sake of this discussion. But, before I risk going afield, would that be central to our discussion to the question “do you believe there is one true church”?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Originally Posted by guanophore forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
G: I think this is an accurate description of the current state of events.
*

Carol: No, it is not accurate now because there is

 

[Carol_Coombe]

…2

Originally Posted by guanophore forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Originally Posted by Carol Coombe
Yebo, I think we agree. But what would we call ‘sects’ or ‘denominations’ or ‘leanings’ within the Catholic Church eg liberal as opposed to fundamentalist? And although I know in theory how Catholic Teaching is transmitted, I see that that does not always, or even most of the time, apply in practice. The stretch from the Vatican to the individual priest is long; priests and bishops vary as to ethnicity, personality, management capacity, and intelligence. When I say that the Catholic Church is not monolithic, I really mean it.

I agree. I think if that stretch were not so long, and priests could not get out of order, the reformation would never have occurred. It is easy to see that, in the Eastern Church, where bishops were able to keep strict Orthodoxy in their communities, there was no reformation. It’s been a problem all along, but there has been a proposal in my diocese that Bishop’s require re-training – and that is quite clearly necessary. Taking a parish priest out his management position, and putting him into a Bishopric does not mean he will make an effective Bishop with the capacity to do what a Bishop is meant to do in terms of maintaining appropriate standards of teaching.

I am suspicious of relativism becoming the standard, instead of the Teachings of Christ as handed on through the Apostles. I think we need to understand relativism too. Could you expand on this? I am not clear about it, and I know that there is a very grave distrust of relativism within the Catholic Church, but I am not sure why. I think it is at the root of much of the disagreement among Christian denominations – the dichotomy between those who believe things are relative, and those who believe there **must **be an absolute truth. I know I think in grey – not black and white – and that I am reluctant to judge anyone else (except for someone who is Prime Evil). That is what I have learned. I do not have an absolute truth to thrust on anyone else. Can we discuss?

Originally Posted by Carol Coombe

 

[guanophore]

I thought your whole point was that this is not necessary? I thought you were promoting that there SHOULD be diversity, and that it is not necessary or recommended for Christendom to be part of the same visible organization?
Carol Coombe;2139191:

Eish dear! My point is that with the Catholic Church claiming primacy,

I am not sure this happened. I think what the Church was claiming was authenticity, which is inherint in the apostolic succession and the divine deposit of faith.

and apparently relegating people of other Christian denominations as well as ‘pagans’ like Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims (pardon Dogmatic Constitution Vatican II) to somewhere beyond the pale, there is no possibility right now

to identify a unified or universal church of Christ.

If it appears to you that our separated brethren are “relegated” then you do not understand the teaching of the church. I would strongly urge that you not take the “appearance” of bigotry and ignorance sometimes demonstrated on this board as representative of the church teaching, which it is not. I also do not think it is a good idea to limit what is possible by the narrow minded personal opinions of a few individuals who do not know or demonstrate what their Church teaches.

Such a church, if ultimately achieved, would of course be diverse because it would **not **

be simply the Catholic Church having swallowed all the other denominations. Instead it would be a true universal church representing all of Christendom. It might even contain elements of other faiths (meditation and contemplation coming out of Buddhist and Hindu traditions are making headway in mainline churches including RCC for example).

jesus said “I will build my church”. He will do so in the manner in which He sees most fit. It will contain such persons as he has called and justified. I do not think it will be at all contrary to what he has already taught us.

Yes, it is certainly part of understanding His life, His nature, His mission, His intentions, His achievements. I mean, in our RCIA, we have talked about how the Church works, what we do during service, the history of the faith from the time of the Jews, the issue of whether the Garden of Eden was ‘real’ or not. So far there has not been a word about Christ: who was He, what were His intentions, did He achieve them, why did God send Him at that particular point in the history of humanity? ‘The Teachings’ is a word that has not been closely defined. It would help to know how much it covers.

“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” This is the teaching. This is what we defend.

Again, what all does ‘Catholic Teaching’ cover? Christ did teach – and exemplify in his brief life - the principal principles that are understood and honoured by all Christians. But what I said was that their interpretation and their application will vary both within the Catholic Church, and among various other Christian denominations.

Catholic teaching is very vast. I don’t think any one person could grasp it all in a lifetime… There is so much diversity in the church, people usually choose a spiritual practice and devoiton that appeals to them and focus on that. I am studying Benedictine tradition right now. A person could be a good Catholic, and never learn it.

 

[distracted]

Is there only on true Christian Church? Yes

It’s wonderful that the other Churches keep most of God’s work alive, and we all agree on some of the principles that Jesus and his chosen taught, but it’s all a little to mysterious for me anymore. I’m through messing with it. I KNOW that the Catholics are following it all. I never have to worry or wonder. I have can have full faith, and find a zillion things to reassure me.

 

[StevenFrancis]

StevenFrancis;2127576:

Is there only on true Christian Church? Yes

I am wondering exactly what you mean by “its all a little mysterious for [you] anymore.” Do you mean its a little 2 confusing?? That’s waht all those denominations do - CONFUSE!!

Anyway, I agree about being “too old” to mess with all that…
I guess i am old, too then.

I agree. Confusing would have been a better word then mysterious. Rapid writing gets me every time. I noticed a bunch of spelling issues too. We can’t edit on here unless we catch it pretty quick.

There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t offer thanks to the Lord that I don’t have to search or wonder anymore. Now, by the Grace of God, I can spend the rest of my life helping others on their journey to conversion.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Protestants have no authority in their church, as their founders left the true church. They gave up the apostolic succession and all the other sacraments that can only come through Christ’s authority.

And as an ex-protestant (so. baptist), let me verify that there is a “Real Presence” in the Holy Eucharist", you can feel Christ’s presence in the confession booth, you can feel electricity when you are Confirmed and when you receive the “annointing of the sick” from a Catholic Priest, etc, etc.

I felt nothing as a baptist. Same old dry hymns, same old lukewarm sermons, and same old KJV Bibles that Martin Luther removed entire books from. Baptists don’t worship. They go to church, sing some hymns, and listen to a preacher preach, then smoke on the church’s front porch after the service. Where exactly is the worship? I never understood it. I always knew there was something missing, I just had no clue HOW MUCH was missing.

The further proestants get away from the true church, the less theology they have.

What exactly does “Apostolic Succession” prove? Paul mentions at least a couple of his disciples who betrayed him … How does this “uninterrupted lineage” really support Catholic dogma at all? The fact that the church must have good record-keepers does little to convince me of the validity of their teachings. I have the Scriptures themselves, the Ultimate Apostolic Connection, the words written and orated by the Apostles themselves!

I attend a Baptist church, though I should make it as clear as possible, I do not consider myself a Baptist. However, I would like to mention that the music (usually electric or acoustic guitars) is great, the “sermons” are interactive (as in, a question is asked and an answer is expected), and it is fairly easy to get an “emotional experience” in any service. However, if you’re basing your faith-system off of emotionalism, you are setting yourself up.

Likewise, I’ve been to Mass before with some very good friends. It was quiet, no one sang, thought, or responded past what was written out for them to say. The closest thing to interaction I observed was near the end of the service, where we briefly shook hands with people and whispered, “Peace be with you.” And that also was very superficial. At my church I was used to the interactions being real–people giving names, homelife situations, asking others to pray for them, gigantic group hugs, and invasions of personal space. Without that, without the sincerity, I felt like other than getting a different perspective and meeting up with some good friends, there was little to be gotten out of the service.

Also, there is a sense of emotionalism in partaking the Eucharist for us, as well. Why wouldn’t there be? The Lord’s Supper is a chance to reflect on Christ, on his life, death, and resurrection. How can you not be consumed by that? As for the literal presence, Christ is always literally present in the heart of a true believer. He was not being metaphorical about that, I feel sure. However, the Eucharist has simply been taken out of context by the Catholic Church for so long, and it doesn’t want to relinquish its cherished tradition, despite the fact that it has no Scriptural support.

I witness week-by-week genuine people, which is rare at Our Lady. Father Bevington, my friend and her family, perhaps some of the staff, they seem pretty genuine. But as far as Catholics living out their faith, really attempting to make interactions, or sharing the Word, it’s a rare thing that I see. Furthermore, the lack of freedom in the services, in the whole religion, is yet another deterrent, as well.

By the way, Martin Luther didn’t remove the Apocrypha. It didn’t even become canonized as “Scripture” until Trent, which was in direct response to the Reformation anyway.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I think you need to pray for understanding of why certain doctrines exist. Do not let this cloudiness discourage you for it is the enemy at work. Now what I have come to realize is that these doctrines are actually needed to have a deeper relationship with Jesus. I can only speak for my self but as a cradle Catholic I failed to understand certain things as I was growing up and ended up as a border line agnostic at one point. Praise be to God that I was delivered and have a deeper relationship with Christ now more than ever. In my opinion what we can do when we fail to understand doctrine is prayer, study and fellowship to bring us to understanding. God has blessed with a thirst and hunger and we should go out feed on the food the Lord has given us.

Believe me, these doctrines you are strugling with do lead us to a simplyfied and deeper relationship with Jesus. Just take it a step at a time and believe that Wisdom is given to us in abundance as long as we ask for it with fear and trembling.

I truly understand what you are saying, and you have made a brave commitment. There is something different about the two of us however. You are committed to your Church because it helps you through prayer, study and fellowship to a greater understanding of your faith, a deeper relationship with Jesus. Then what? Then what happens? Through the Eucharist, guarantee of eternal salvation by Christ the Redeemer? Or something else beyond that?

For me, the Church is a sanctuary for one’s feeble soul, as you have suggested. It finds us where we are at, and Christ holds us in His loving arms, to comfort and regenerate our spirits. And there may be a lot of doctrine involved, but mostly quiet prayer and contemplation. And then? Then I am ready to meet the world, to deal with life, and the responsibilities that go with being a Christian, to reflect Christ in my actions, to serve. Perhaps I am a missionary manquee. Perhaps you are strongly led to serve.

But I do feel that there is a strong sense of salvation for ME in the RCC, and just as strong a sense of daily responsibility here and now for The Other within other denominations. This may not be a justifiable characterisation of different denominations.

So let me just ask what your goal, your priority is, in being a good Catholic?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Diversity or individuality is essential in the Church. We are given by God different gifts that should be used to building up each other. Each member is a piece of the puzzle.

Diversity in doctrines is harmful for the unity of the Church. When doctrines contradict each other then we are given a stumbling block to the Truth. What makes a nation great is the ability have the same thing/s in common. We Christians and Catholics have more in common than what we realize. The pope has stressed an the importance on focusing on our common beliefs rather than the differences. The main challenge is that we may all become as one which sometimes means that we have to have different outlooks on what we believed was true.

And it is very hard not to agree with the Pope - that our differences are insignificant, mere historical anomalies - compared to our common intent. We are all part of Christendom; we are all part of one another, and therefore all part of Christ’s universal church.

And he shall reign forever and ever.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Oh now wait a minute. Christ created the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Protestants in protest 1500 years later left Christ’s Church, so don’t call Catholic’s the heretics in this context.

That would be like calling the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, who left the democratic party and created a third party named the Dixiecrats, than later joined the GOP, a democrat. NO! He died a republican.

Protestants have no authority in their church, as their founders left the true church. They gave up the apostolic succession and all the other sacraments that can only come through Christ’s authority.

And as an ex-protestant (so. baptist), let me verify that there is a “Real Presence” in the Holy Eucharist", you can feel Christ’s presence in the confession booth, you can feel electricity when you are Confirmed and when you receive the “annointing of the sick” from a Catholic Priest, etc, etc.

I felt nothing as a baptist. Same old dry hymns, same old lukewarm sermons, and same old KJV Bibles that Martin Luther removed entire books from. Baptists don’t worship. They go to church, sing some hymns, and listen to a preacher preach, then smoke on the church’s front porch after the service. Where exactly is the worship? I never understood it. I always knew there was something missing, I just had no clue HOW MUCH was missing.

The further proestants get away from the true church, the less theology they have.

Please realise how boring it is to hear the same thing again and again and again:

(1) Christ created One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (although in the Nicene Creed, these are written without capital letters);
(2) Luther and his ilk kicked off the traces of the Absolute Truth of Catholicism and made an ill-fated attempt to understand what Christ meant by his life and mission;
(3) by being so moronic, they gave up any hope of salvation, redemption, forgiveness, etc etc which come only from Christ through the One True Church;
(4) and then the kicker opinion that anyone not in the Catholic faith has nothing at all to think about that has any merit.

This is a really uninformed charicature of the nature of both the Catholic Church and those denominations founded after the schism. And the charicature leads us nowhere really. We all know these four themes really well.

So can you help us move forward with something more informed, that would help us to think out of the box?

Jabulani!

 

[jmcrae]

What exactly does “Apostolic Succession” prove? Paul mentions at least a couple of his disciples who betrayed him … How does this “uninterrupted lineage” really support Catholic dogma at all? The fact that the church must have good record-keepers does little to convince me of the validity of their teachings. I have the Scriptures themselves, the Ultimate Apostolic Connection, the words written and orated by the Apostles themselves!

What you don’t have is how the hearers of the time understood what the Apostles said to them and wrote to them, nor how they have continued to be understood by the same Church since that time.

Your history comes to an abrupt halt at the end of the Book of Acts, and then resumes more than 1500 years later, with Martin Luther pounding his 95 theses into the door of the cathedral at Wittenberg.

I attend a Baptist church, though I should make it as clear as possible, I do not consider myself a Baptist. However, I would like to mention that the music (usually electric or acoustic guitars) is great, the “sermons” are interactive (as in, a question is asked and an answer is expected), and it is fairly easy to get an “emotional experience” in any service. However, if you’re basing your faith-system off of emotionalism, you are setting yourself up.

Likewise, I’ve been to Mass before with some very good friends. It was quiet, no one sang, thought, or responded past what was written out for them to say. The closest thing to interaction I observed was near the end of the service, where we briefly shook hands with people and whispered, “Peace be with you.” And that also was very superficial. At my church I was used to the interactions being real–people giving names, homelife situations, asking others to pray for them, gigantic group hugs, and invasions of personal space. Without that, without the sincerity, I felt like other than getting a different perspective and meeting up with some good friends, there was little to be gotten out of the service.

If you were Catholic before, then you must be aware that socializing occurs elsewhere, as does Catechesis (that question and answer stuff) and Bible study - the Mass is neither a classroom nor a social hall; it is a time of worship. All of the Mass is oriented towards Christ; therefore, we don’t interact a whole lot with each other. We are there together, all facing the same direction, which is Christward.

However, the Eucharist has simply been taken out of context by the Catholic Church for so long, and it doesn’t want to relinquish its cherished tradition, despite the fact that it has no Scriptural support.

You have no support for any of this.

There is, on the other hand, plenty of support for the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist in Scripture. There are also plenty of other threads on that subject, so I refer you to them.

I witness week-by-week genuine people, which is rare at Our Lady. Father Bevington, my friend and her family, perhaps some of the staff, they seem pretty genuine. But as far as Catholics living out their faith, really attempting to make interactions, or sharing the Word, it’s a rare thing that I see. Furthermore, the lack of freedom in the services, in the whole religion, is yet another deterrent, as well.

If your only reason for going to Church is to see other people living perfect lives, then no, you’re not going to find that in the Catholic Church, since, being required to come to Mass on Sundays, many of us are there even when we’re having a bad time of it.

Protestants only have to go to Church when everything is going well, so you never see any unhappy Protestants in public, or Protestants who are going through a bad time, because those ones stay at home.

By the way, Martin Luther didn’t remove the Apocrypha. It didn’t even become canonized as “Scripture” until Trent, which was in direct response to the Reformation anyway.

The Council of Trent reaffirmed the Declaration of Pope Damasus I on the Old Testament, which he made in something like 385 AD (going from memory, here), and it closed the canon of the Old Testament at the original 46 books that Christ and the Apostles are known to have used.

The Apocrypha (which is the Gnostic gospels, etc.) was thrown out by Pope Damasus at the same time that he was working on the canon of the New Testament. The deuterocanon of the Old Testament is not apocryphal, and it is bad Bible scholarship to refer to it as such, because of the possible confusion with the real Apocrypha, which is the collection of the gnostic gospels (where they got the Da Vinci Code stuff from).

A Bible guy like you wouldn’t want to be a bad Bible scholar, now, would you?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You clearly like to throw around labels too much.

Pot and kettle? Having said that, I do believe that claiming that “Ms Coombe’s post supports moral relativism” is preferable to “calling Ms Coombe a relativist.” Ad hominems are fallacious and not the best form.

Contarini:

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.”

You are speaking about what you heard, not what Ms Coombe said. Two different things.

This is what Ms Coombe said:
Carol Coombe:

I do believe that this is the way the world is moving, and our faith must move with it.

For you to say that this statement is not moral relativism would be for you to say that the world is the Foundation of Truth. Otherwise why should our faith move with the world?

Please explain how the world is the Foundation of Truth so that the rest of us can follow what you are saying. Thank you.