Do you believe there is one true church?

[Carol_Coombe]

Yes, I believe that there is one True Church. That is why I am Catholic.
To Carol Coombe:
If you are truly desirous of becoming Catholic, dump the intellectualism and start accepting what the Church and Christ have to offer you. I’m not saying “put the brain in neutral” but follow Our Lord’s admonition regarding child-like faith. There is plenty of time for deep examination later. Let God speak to you about the truth of His Church. He seldom shouts, He speaks in whispers that you must be still to hear. If you try to examine how the butterfly flies, you kill the butterfly. Rest in the arms of God, let him lead you. Peace.

Ah, my true friend Hosemonkey, the one who pushed me over the edge last time.

Yes, there is a sense that anti-intellectualism is rife, perhaps because it is often not compatible with fundamentalism. And this is what makes it impossible perhaps to even contemplate, never mind discuss the possibility of one true church other than the Catholic Church.

Never mind, the rest of your posting was kind. I would like to think that you are that way most of the time, and not as you were the previous time.

Jabulani!

 

[Contarini]

I was very active on that post…if you do a search for posts under my screen name they should all come up…you can scroll through them. If you still can’t find them, I’ll see if I can drum up the numbers.

Best,

Iowa Mike

All I see are the usual arguments from John 6 and 1 Cor. 11, which certainly do not prove transubstantiation. Those texts do not speak of the bread and wine being transformed and do not say that they are no longer bread after the consecration. In fact, 1 Cor. 11 says exactly the opposite. This doesn’t necessarily contradict transubstantiation, but it certainly doesn’t support it.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Ah, my true friend Hosemonkey, the one who pushed me over the edge last time.

Yes, there is a sense that anti-intellectualism is rife, perhaps because it is often not compatible with fundamentalism.

It’s not “anti-intellectualism” - intellectualism certainly has its place in the Catholic Church; just ask St. Thomas Aquinas. But our attitude has to be “Faith Seeking Understanding” - not the other way around.

If we try to understand the Catholic Church before we have faith, we will get nowhere. We have to take the leap of faith (just pretend it’s all true; begin by saying to yourself, “What if this were really true; what then?”), and then things will begin to make a lot more sense.

For example, What if it were true that Jesus deliberately intended to establish a Church? What if it were true that Jesus ordained Peter as the first Pope? What if it were true that Peter’s successors are still here today?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Ah, my true friend Hosemonkey, the one who pushed me over the edge last time.

Yes, there is a sense that anti-intellectualism is rife, perhaps because it is often not compatible with fundamentalism. And this is what makes it impossible perhaps to even contemplate, never mind discuss the possibility of one true church other than the Catholic Church.

Never mind, the rest of your posting was kind. I would like to think that you are that way most of the time, and not as you were the previous time.

Jabulani!

Carol,

Yes, there is a sense that anti-intellectualism is rife, perhaps because it is often not compatible with fundamentalism. And this is what makes it impossible perhaps to even contemplate, never mind discuss the possibility of one true church other than the Catholic Church.

.

Just because someone doesn’t agree with you regarding the Catholic Faith does not mean they are either less than you intellecutally or are a religious fundamentalist. What it does mean is that they believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and are not into the religion of relativism as you are. You would do well to listen and heed the wise words of Hosemonkey; he is only trying to get you to open your heart, your eyes and your ears so you can hear God talking to you.

Iowa Mike

 

[Exodus15]

The Catholic Church is the one true church. If soneone feels connected to the Lord at gatherings that doesn’t involve the Rites, Traditions, and sacraments handed down through the centuries, that’s their own choice, free will, or free agency. But, in the fullness of the Church and the gospels, it’s great to practicing in the faith which Jesus intended.

non-Catholic - Saved when I found Jesus
Catholic- Saved when Jesus finds me

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Originally Posted by Carol Coombe
*there **does ***seem to be ‘an extraordinary degree of oppositionality, defiance, refusal of authority, and even mocking, sniggering and patronising advice’ on this Forum, which perhaps draws out folks on both sides who like the thrust and bustle of scoring points

This comment of yours may possibly display projective identification.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol,

.

Just because someone doesn’t agree with you regarding the Catholic Faith does not mean they are either less than you intellecutally or are a religious fundamentalist. What it does mean is that they believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and are not into the religion of relativism as you are. You would do well to listen and heed the wise words of Hosemonkey; he is only trying to get you to open your heart, your eyes and your ears so you can hear God talking to you.

Iowa Mike

I listened and responded appropriately by thanking him.

Please define, objectively, religion of relativism.

Jabulani!

 

[Iowa_Mike]

All I see are the usual arguments from John 6 and 1 Cor. 11, which certainly do not prove transubstantiation. Those texts do not speak of the bread and wine being transformed and do not say that they are no longer bread after the consecration. In fact, 1 Cor. 11 says exactly the opposite. This doesn’t necessarily contradict transubstantiation, but it certainly doesn’t support it.

Edwin

I’ll retrieve them for you but I cannot do so today.

Iowa Mike

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Originally Posted by Iowa** Mike #426**
*

People can choose whatever beliefs they want and I will respect their right to do so. That doesn’t mean I subscribe to their views or will set aside my own beliefs.

• I agree: and would suggest that you apply these principles to others.

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.”

Thank you. Perhaps you could relate this to our discussion of one true church. I have written about why I do not now defer to the idea of absolute truth, and why I would not require others to defer to my interpretation of absolute truth (if I had one). It may be absolute truth that Jehovah and Allah are the same god: but I doubt you would accept that as an absolute truth. I accept it as truth, but do not expect you to.

*Pope Benedict’s warning about the dictatorship of relativism: *

*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." * I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger’s observations. It is difficult to bridge the gap between fundamentalism on one hand, and total uncertainty on the other. However, he omitted to observe the middle way, and the concept of unity in Christendom alive to the world.

Y*ou believe in the right of each individual to choose their own beliefs [etc = words in my mouth] 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. *

• You have a deft way of putting words in others’ mouths. We are not dealing only with God. We are dealing with very frail human beings. We are dealing with governments and international organisations which reflect international standards for protecting children, women, the disabled, the dying, those infected with HIV or terminal TB. Further I reject your implication that if someone believes in something, then it’s OK with God. It may not be OK with anyone, not just God. And yes, it is possible to reject the doctrines of the RCC, and still be saved, still be beloved of God, still be one of His divine children. It is possible to be a moral non-Christian and be saved.

[There is a big] distance between the Catholic Faith and your understanding of it.

• Probably. Would I willingly accept your instruction, knowing that you think me a stumblebum? There would probably be a lack of interface. Questioning, as opposed to obeying strict rules, is not your strength.

You seem to oppose Church teachings. Can you explain why you want to join a Church and what Church teachings and doctrines you actually believe.

I have not opposed most Church teachings, although I may have reflected on issues in ways antithetical to Church doctrine. I am still learning what Church doctrine is, remember. Why do you think I should know everything you know in 8 months? Finally, I do not need to justify to you my wish to join the Catholic Church, although I have been willing to answer your questions.

 

[Contarini]

I’ll retrieve them for you but I cannot do so today.

Iowa Mike

Can’t you just summarize?

Edwin

 

[DLC]

There is only one true church. All those who are saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone are member of true church. Eph 2:8-9; John 3:16; Titus 3:5.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

If you are in RCIA, you should not have time to worry about whether other folks are learning what they are supposed to be learning. Your own knowledge could clearly use a lot of work.

Someone gave you a link to that B16 article on relativism already. Perhaps you could further this inquiry about relativism on a different thread?

If God did not want us to judge behaviour then he would not have given us the gifts of observation or reason. If you can’t judge behaviour then you can’t protect yourself or your family from harm. That’s not right. God does not want us to judge people’s hearts; their motives. Judging hearts is His job.

I’ve given you references to what the Church teaches on other faiths. Do you have thoughts about which church other than the Catholic Church has primacy? Perhaps a thread on the claims of another church to primacy might be useful?

I’ve assisted at RCIA. I noticed that some folks were in RCIA because they wanted a Catholic wedding but had little use for a Catholic life. They didn’t do very well. Why are you in RCIA?

This post says a lot more about you than it does about me. Please understand that, and take it into account when I say that I have decided (with advice) that it would not be useful to take you and Iowa Mike on, because it would not make a blind bit of difference to you, or to my security on this Forum. It is as if you want to drive people out: perhaps you feel I am not quite the right kind of person to join your church. It’s OK.

Several points, and then goodbye:

(1) I did not raise the issue of relativism: Iowa Mike did.
(2) Your para on God judging hearts is incomprehensible.
(3) You have clearly not been reading postings on this thread, or you would know that one alternative in terms of primacy is **not **another church but the universal church of Christ, the church of Christendom, incorporating diversity within unity.
(4) You have asked twice, in manner than some would call obnoxious, why I take adult enquiry classes (as they are called here in Pretoria, which is the capital city of South Africa). You suggest that I am taking them so I can have my wedding or funeral or baptism of my child or confirmation there, or that there is some other deep and dark motivation. As I have two children of 30 years old, you will perhaps understand that I am not looking for a wedding venue. Msgr de Muelenaere is my spiritual director. He has offered to bring me through the mouth of the dragon into the Church, and is doing his best to do so. Perhaps I can become a Catholic of integrity and compassion which is what I long for despite the obstacles put in my way.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I listened and responded appropriately by thanking him.

Please define, objectively, religion of relativism.

Jabulani!

Carol,

I provided ample examples of relativism in earlier posts including an article written in 05 by Pope Benedict the XVI which I think brings the issue and definition into focus.

Iowa Mike

 

[jmcrae]

(3) You have clearly not been reading postings on this thread, or you would know that one alternative in terms of primacy is **not **another church but the universal church of Christ, the church of Christendom, incorporating diversity within unity.

What you are not understanding (yet) is that this is not an “alternative to” the Catholic Church - it is the Catholic Church.

There is no invisible federation of Christians with no heirarchy, no leadership, etc. The Church Christ founded has actual leaders, who are descended in a spiritual and sacramental lineage from the very Apostles themselves, and that this Church is in fact exactly what you have described - universal in its jurisdiction (every human being on the planet resides in a Catholic parish and has a Catholic priest who is responsible for his or her pastoral care, whether they realize it or not - even if they reside in Antarctica or on the Moon), diverse in its population, and unified in doctrine, morals, and organization.

 

[guanophore]

There is only one true church. All those who are saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone are member of true church. Eph 2:8-9; John 3:16; Titus 3:5.

You are adding to scripture, DLC. Nowhere does it say that we are saved by faith alone. Also, baptism is what makes us members of His church.

Eph 4:3-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all"

1 Peter 3:21-22
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Acts 19:1-7
19:1 While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all. "

All disciples have been baptized into the Lord Jesus.

John 13:8
esus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me.”

1 Cor 6:11
But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Baptism sanctifies, justifies, and brings the Spirit. Baptism makes us members of His body.

Heb 10:21-22
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water."

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Carol,

Thank you for the courtesy of a response.

Quote: By Iowa Mike
People can choose whatever beliefs they want and I will respect their right to do so. That doesn’t mean I subscribe to their views or will set aside my own beliefs.

From Carol: I agree: and would suggest that you apply these principles to others.

That is a disingenuous response. You can believe whatever you like, I am hopeful one day you will come to the Church. My responses are in response to your rejection of my beliefs with unsupported by anything beyond your opinion.

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

From Carol: Thank you. Perhaps you could relate this to our discussion of one true church. I have written about why I do not now defer to the idea of absolute truth, and why I would not require others to defer to my interpretation of absolute truth (if I had one). It may be absolute truth that Jehovah and Allah are the same god: but I doubt you would accept that as an absolute truth. I accept it as truth, but do not expect you to.

I think you miss the point. This means that {you believe] individual beliefs and needs trump religious doctrine. This is at the core of our disagreement, I don’t believe that you can get a bunch of people in a room and because the believe ‘abortion’ is OK that it is something that conforms to God’s will. It is that simple.

By Carol:

I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger’s observations. It is difficult to bridge the gap between fundamentalism on one hand, and total uncertainty on the other. However, he omitted to observe the middle way, and the concept of unity in Christendom alive to the world.

What does this mean? Unity in accordance with what? Please define your what your unified Christians believe? Your arguments on HIV, contraception, etc. would say that you think religious belief is trumped by man’s prediciments.

Quote:
You believe in the right of each individual to choose their own beliefs etc**[This comment is from Carol: = words in my mouth**]

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.

Carol the following are your words, lifted from another post:

By 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.

What exactly does this mean if not acceptance of each individuals beliefs regarding the issues mentioned?

By Carol:

You have a deft way of putting words in others’ mouths. We are not dealing only with God. We are dealing with very frail human beings.

We are dealing with governments and international organisations which reflect international standards for protecting children, women, the disabled, the dying, those infected with HIV or terminal TB. Further I reject your implication that if someone believes in something, then it’s OK with God. It may not be OK with anyone, not just God. And yes, it is possible to reject the doctrines of the RCC, and still be saved, still be beloved of God, still be one of His divine children. It is possible to be a moral non-Christian and be saved.

I fail to follow your logic. I am quoting your words. Above you state that everyone has the right to their own beliefs in accordance with their needs. Whether you realize it or not the implication is that if everyone is so entitled then God will accept whatever they do. I totally disagree with this, we are on earth to know, to love and to serve God.

By Carol

Probably. Would I willingly accept your instruction, knowing that you think me a stumblebum? There would probably be a lack of interface. Questioning, as opposed to obeying strict rules, is not your strength.

To be continued

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Continued…

Quote:By Iowa Mike

You seem to oppose Church teachings. Can you explain why you want to join a Church [Iowa Mike: whose beliefs you reject] and [Iowa Mike: please explain] what Church teachings and doctrines you actually believe.

I have not opposed most Church teachings, although I may have reflected on issues in ways antithetical to Church doctrine. I am still learning what Church doctrine is, remember. Why do you think I should know everything you know in 8 months? Finally, I do not need to justify to you my wish to join the Catholic Church, although I have been willing to answer your questions.

I don’t expect you to know everything after only 8 months, I still learn things every day and I’m a cradle Catholic, but I do expect that you will be respectful as you go along.

Honestly, after all this time I only know what beliefs you have rejected, I have no clue has to what you belief.

As far as being rooted in scripture and Church tradition and teachings, it is a place you need to find. I’m happy to discuss you views on a level playing field without all the intellectual trimmings. Let’s discuss the core issues and leave all the other stuff out.

Iowa Mike

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Carol,

I do no think you are a stumblebum. I’ve never called you such a name all the time we have exchangng posts. I regularly pray for you. I wish you the best.

Iowa Mike

 

[Carol_Coombe]

It may be helpful at this point, on an important thread, to sum up some of the themes that have presented themselves.

First, is it possible to engage in a discussion of one true church, and reach any conclusion here?

I am sorely confused because of the variety of responses, from people from diverse backgrounds but especially from Catholics themselves. What do we find?

• people with ideas that may be antithetical to our belief
• arrogance
• simple faith
• support from some, attack from others
• useful insights
• advice that has the capacity to shift one’s thinking
• uninformed knee-jerk reactions
• helpful correction
• scorn and abuse for The Other
• lack of engagement with propositions that do not ‘fit’ our ideas
• lack of recognition that becoming a Catholic is a lifelong process, that knowledge of doctrine and faith does not leap fully fledged into the quester’s mind and heart
• failure to acknowledge that many are truly questing
• low blows and self-serving sniggers.
  I point no fingers, but sources can be identified, including myself.

If we insist on engaging in this way, I am not sure that we will come to any reasoned agreement at all - even that we will inevitably continue to disagree on the primacy of the Catholic Church and/or the possibility and necessity of transforming Christendom, in trust and patience into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ in the world.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Second, I have been asked several times to give references to authors whom I have found particularly helpful in my quest for a home in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps the most deeply impressing and recent reading has come from the Vatican:

**Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993). *The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church *(introduction by Pope John Paul II, chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger). Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. **

The interpretation of text is always dependent on the mindset and concerns of its readers. Readers give privileged attention to certain aspects and, without even being aware of it, neglect others. Thus it is inevitable that some exegetes bring to their work points of view that are new and responsive to contemporary currents of thought which have not up till now been taken sufficiently into consideration. It is important that they do so with critical discernment. The movements in this regard which claim particular attention today are those of liberation theology and feminism….Liberation theology is not content with an objectifying interpretation which concentrates on what the text said in its original context. It seeks a reading drawn from the situation of people as it is lived here and now….The reality of the present time should not be ignored but, on the contrary, met head on, with a view to shedding upon it the light of the Word…Within the vision of faith, Scripture is transformed into a dynamic impulse for full liberation. (and ff)

[There are risks.] More recent social and political changes have led this approach to ask itself new questions and to seek new directions. For its further development and fruitfulness within the Church, a decisive factor will be the clarification of its hermeneutical presuppositions, its methods, and its coherence with the faith and the Tradition of the Church as a whole. (and ff)

It is clear that the Catholic Church at the highest levels is responding to a world in change, and to the oppression of the vast majority of the world’s population. It is also emphasising an enlightened reading of the Scriptures.*