Do you believe there is one true church?

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol,

For future reference, the Catholic Church is Christ’s Universal Church…the One True Church…and as such has no need to join itself.

Iowa Mike

I think you have said this many times, and I am sure that you believe this with all your heart. And it is your right to do so. Others have the right to question your belief, to challenge it, to think intelligently about it, and even to reject it for themselves if they find that there is not substance to the belief.

Now please go away.

 

[lak611]

Everything is relative; everything is conditional - except God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Church is manmade, although the keys were handd over by Christ, and that makes it only relatively inaccurate part of the time Who had access to the Absolute Truth - about Mary, and about God;s intentions for her status, for her veneration, for her worship, and about the response of Catholicism had John Paul II had his wishes? What he wished did not happen - because Ratzinger was there. You might suggest that Ratzinger was sent by God. Perhaps.

Now go away please.

The Church is not manmade. The Church was established by Christ.

We do not worship Mary. This is one of the oldest and biggest misunderstandings of Catholics by Protestants.

Pope Benedict XVI was chosen through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Are you suggesting that he is not a valid Pope?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The Church is not “behind the times”. The Church is outside of time. Expecting the Church to conform to the world is another example of relativism.

Not conform to the world, but to adjust to existing socio-political and economic realities, as it has done in the past. If it does not, or will not, it will die. All great religions adapt or die - historical principle.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Dear Grace Angel,

You are a child of God and so I know you were worthy of every comfort you received at Fatima! I am sure God loves you!

The faith and humility of you and so many others in this forum continues to astound me! Thank you for sharing your experiences and encouraging the rest of us!

Love, Melanie

Melanie your gracious words to me are a balm to my spirit.
thank you dear one.
Grace Angel.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

jmcrae;2149376:

Originally Posted by JMCRAE

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
*

The Church is the world-wide unstoppable organization founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD which is descended spiritually and sacramentally from His followers - Peter being its chief shepherd (John 21:15-19) and the Apostles being its leading Bishops (Matthew 28:16-20).

If it’s not the Catholic Church, then it is another

• world-wide, 2,000 year old heirarchical organization with direct Apostolic lineage, and with Peter as its first Chief Shepherd.

There are actually some plausible contenders, but none of them are Protestant.
You are hard to understand. You know we are discussing if there is one true church. That is why we are discussing various possibilities. Yet you insist on standing on your box, and announcing your belief - and defining your terms - to anyone who is willing to listen. That is not a discussion, but mere polemic on your part. Not helpful.

The other thing I find hard to understand is that, having been an active member of a protestant church for over 17 years (Tiber Swim Team 2001 refers, I think), you have become rabidly anti-protestant, in a way that does not reflect well on you. How can you turn friends into enemies, work into evil, belief into disbelief, and do it so visciously at times? Is it necessary to seek revenge subliminally in order that you can feel even more strongly settled in your new faith?

Your experience has been like mine: I do not understand the hostility you display to perfectly innocent Christians of other denominations (I am not including myself here - declare my self-interest before you take me on again).

THE SYSTEM BECAME CONFUSED: THE QUOTE IS JMCRAE NOT CAROL COOMBE (544)

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Originally Posted by CAROL COOMBE forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
# 512

*Come on McRae, you know perfectly well that ***we ****are not

***You ***prefer to focus your attention on that aspect of the discussion. However, others are looking at the possibility of an alternative universal church of Christ, of Christendom.

The request for a definition of ‘church’ is useful; and how do we distinguish church from denomination or sect, or mosque, temple, shrine or synagogue?

Response by jmcrae
The Church is the world-wide unstoppable organization founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD which is descended spiritually and sacramentally from His followers - Peter being its chief shepherd (John 21:15-19) and the Apostles being its leading Bishops (Matthew 28:16-20).

If it’s not the Catholic Church, then it is another world-wide, 2,000 year old heirarchical organization with direct Apostolic lineage, and with Peter as its first Chief Shepherd.

There are actually some plausible contenders, but none of them are Protestant.

NOTE CORRECTION: SYSTEM CONFUSED. QUOTATION BY COOMBE, RESPONSE BY JMCRAE.

 

[lak611]

Not conform to the world, but to adjust to existing socio-political and economic realities, as it has done in the past. If it does not, or will not, it will die. All great religions adapt or die - historical principle.

God’s Truth is unchanging. It will never be any different than it ever was. The Church was established by God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Truths of the Church are the same now as they were on the day of Pentecost. The Church will never die. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church. Expecting the Church to “adapt” is another example of relativism.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

From Carol Coombe to jmcrae

You are hard to understand. You know we are discussing if there is one true church. That is why we are discussing various possibilities. Yet you insist on standing on your box, and announcing your belief - and defining your terms - to anyone who is willing to listen. That is not a discussion, but mere polemic on your part. Not helpful.

The other thing I find hard to understand is that, having been an active member of a protestant church for over 17 years (Tiber Swim Team 2001 refers, I think), you have become rabidly anti-protestant, in a way that does not reflect well on you. How can you turn friends into enemies, work into evil, belief into disbelief, and do it so visciously at times? Is it necessary to seek revenge subliminally in order that you can feel even more strongly settled in your new faith?

Your experience has been like mine: I do not understand the hostility you display to perfectly innocent Christians of other denominations (I am not including myself here - declare my self-interest before you take me on again).

 

[The_Confused_1]

Such arrogance to think your church fathers can override God. Whosoever believes means whosoever believes. And to actually think your church fathers gave us God’s Word is such arrogance. Water baptism does not save. Why don’t you prove it?

The water from the fountain is always freshest the nearer it get to the source.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

There is an error in the original #550: correct to below, quotation from Coombe, reply from Janet S

#550

I am not sure what your point is here. I am simply indicating that historically our attitude to children - and to teenagers - has changed. Is there something relativist about this?

Goodness me, this was written by an eminent historian in a great big book that focused on our perceptions of age groups. You can find it if you want to. I assume that historians for the most part on not pushing agendas: it is not in their interest to do so if they are sound academics. I am sure there are those who do: if you teach at a Catholic University, you will have views that come from a certain angle; if you teach at an evangelical bible school, you will post publications which also shed a certain kind of light. But most academic literature is just that - academic literature.

Is there nothing that can be quoted, referenced, or used as a source of ideas that might not be a ‘poisonous agenda’. I have mentioned Huizinga in my bibliography: what do you know about him?

I am not setting out a treatise of my own; I am not making a plea for better treatment of children in the feudal through 19th century; I am simply observing that this is the case. And you can find 19th and 20th century photos that prove the case: children in very odd costumes until they were well into their first decade; children in servitude in weaving mills. And in Burma, where children are valued beyond all else, today parents send their daughters into protitution for a selected period, in order to provide economic security for the family.

Yes, the Church may teach an ideal; the psychologists and sociologists are well aware of what the ideal is. But factual, evidentual history, written and read with a neutral composure, provides us with a different story from the Walt Disney world we would prefer to live in.

Reply from Janet S to Carol Coombe (Please note correction to original)

I don’t know anything about Huizinga.

It’s unfortunate that not all children are valued and loved as they should be. It was a problem in the past and is still a problem today. I work in a pediatric hospital, so I see firsthand how children can be abused by those who should love them. We live with the effects of original sin, and nowhere is this more evident that the example of how we treat the weak in our society, especially children.

As far as the historian Philip Aries, I don’t believe he is neutral like you claim, and I don’t accept his account of history. Everyone has a worldview and a bias, not just Christians. He has a biased agenda to demean and distort the parent-child bond --that is obvious to me. The parent-child relationship is a natural, loving bond, but he is presenting it as a utilitarian role dictated by societal needs. I don’t deny there may be some differences in the perceptions of parenthood throughout cultures and times, but to suggest parents withheld love from their children until they deemed it was worth their time to do so (when they knew the child would survive) defies common sense. Even animals operating on instinct alone would not do this. I know this is Aries’ theory, not yours. But you brought it up, so I assume you accept it. I think it’s ridiculous and unbelievable, so I wanted to point it out.

There are a lot of popular intellectuals/scholars that I wouldn’t waste my time reading. They were fashionable at one time in history, but who takes them seriously anymore except to point out how wrong they were. Some examples are Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Francis Galton, Margaret Mead, Adolph Hitler, and Alfred Kinsey. Just because people become famous and influential doesn’t make them right. Just because they don’t profess a religion, doesn’t mean they are neutral or don’t have an agenda.

The Church teaches an ideal. It is called “reality.” People have a basic human nature that does not change. We are created in the image of God. Original sin causes many of us to “miss the mark”, but our basic human nature remains the same throughout times and cultures unlike what the relativists would have us believe.

 

[fellowChristian]

Hello everyone. May I ask a couple of questions in response to the thread?

Q: Before 1517 how many Christian denominations were there?

Q: And which came first the bible or the church?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

How can a …thoughtful, Catholic subscribe to belief: there is one absolute truth, there is on church, there is one pope, there is one interpretation of the bible, there is one perfection…

Why not ? Mathematicians and scientists do it all the time. …there is only one truth in mathematics, and there is only one truth in science…It’s the same with revealed religion. (quote from jmcrae).

It is not the same with revealed religion, which exists in an entirely different paradigm.

What God has revealed of Himself to us through Christ and Christ’s Church is all true. That means He really is God(quote from jmcrae).

What God says is true, and that means He is therefore really God? This is tautology?

and I hold it in my hand. (quote from Coombe)

She holds me in Her hand. (quote from jmcrae)

Sorry, I do not know what you are referring to.

This seems antithetical to Christ’s example, to the way we understand Him as a person of love, lively affection, understanding and perspicacity. (quote from Coombe)

I don’t understand how this is the opposite of truth? How does being loving equate to being confused about stuff, and all over the map willy-nilly? (quote from jmcrae)

I am not sure what ‘this’ is, and reply may be difficult for others to understand.

It seems antithetical to reality the start of written human civilisation about 12,000 years ago. It seems antithetical to a sound, well-informed faith which is based on a real understanding of the interpretations of the Church/Magisterium as well as on the social realities God’s world is facing. (quote from Coombe)

I really don’t see how. If we couldn’t know God, we would be less civilized, and less loving - not more. (quote from mcrae)

Again, I am not clear about what it is that is ‘antithetical’ and perhaps you would clarify what idea you are responding to.

It is impossible, it seems to me, to trust blind - and at times arrogant and solitary - belief that allows for no other alternative even for people of other faiths and cultures. I find this sad, and ultimately unacceptable. (quote from Carol Coombe)

Other faiths have a certain share in the truth. These other religions exist because other people are also looking for God. (quote from jmcrae)

Don’t you mean that they may have a certain insight into part of *your *truth? But of course, knowing part of your truth is inherently deadly for them, because if they know part of your truth, and reject it, turn their backs preferring to die in their own faith, they go directly to hell, if I remember correctly.

Imagine if you were … a mathematical genius, and people elsewhere had discovered the abacus. Wouldn’t you want to go and help them learn more? That’s exactly how we Catholics feel when we encounter people who are looking for God (quote from jmcrae).

I know I am pushing you, but my reaction would be to go and see if there is anything I can learn from them about crunching numbers - the abacus does different things. So yes, we can take them into the world of technology and computers, but 1000 years ago, we would have been learning from the Moslems in Spain (Lewis), and today we might be going to learn from children in Cote d’Ivoirian markets, who have an unerring ability to know the weight of rice without conventional mathematics (Coombe). It is a two way street.

I don’t understand how truth negates culture, though. People of every culture can certainly be Catholic.(quote from jmcrae)

Why, why, why are you convinced that everyone should be a Catholic? With 1.6 billion Catholics around the world, lots of people of different cultures are bound up in the Church. The point is that there are others who prefer their own culturally-biased belief systems, their understandings of values, who do not wish to be part of the Catholic Church, who have a profound understanding of their own religion, who believe it to be just as true as the faith of Catholics and the understandings of the Catholic Church. It is their prerogative to do so, and this is enshrined in various international conventions.

And did you ever think for one moment, even one little moment, that it might just be that they have access to The Absolute Truth? Or at least that they have understanding of divine truths which we Christians have not yet accessed?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

When we are called to faith, it is not so we can pick and choose which aspects of faith we agree with, and choose a faith on that basis. We are called to conform ourselves to God.

God is under no obligation to conform Himself to us.

I think a lot of this discussion appears to be veering off into that place where God is supposed to conform Himself to how we want Him to be. But that’s not how it works. You can fuss and fume and disagree, but God doesn’t have to conform Himself to you EVER. It’s your job to conform yourself to God.

This may be difficult in a world where “anything goes” and “if it feels good, do it” but God didn’t create those ideas, people did.

There is a difference between God on one hand, and his will for us, and the Church on the other, and its interpretation and promotion of what its will is for us, usually grounded in its perception of God’s will.

It is not fair perhaps to say that this is a world where anything goes. I suggested earlier that in this world where we are taught to enquire, to think, to ask, to be curious, to think outside the box, to be creative, to be independent, to look into the future, to care for those who are oppressed, to share more of what we have with those who have nothing, it is difficult to ‘accept’ the thinking of one organisation - which may be informed by God but is composed of men. It may also just be that God is moving us on into a new world in which we are far more aware than we ever were before that we are all responsible for one another - the African concept of ubuntu.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The Church is not manmade. The Church was established by Christ.

We do not worship Mary. This is one of the oldest and biggest misunderstandings of Catholics by Protestants.

Pope Benedict XVI was chosen through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Are you suggesting that he is not a valid Pope?

Please read closely.

Christ established the Church; men have managed it -sometimes well and sometimes not so well - ever since.

I did not suggest for one moment that Catholics worship Mary. What I did say however was that it is my understanding that John Paul II was determined that Catholics *should *worship Mary, and was prepared to issue an infallible statement to this effect, until Ratzinger stopped him.

Whatever gave you the idea that I do not think Pope Benedict XVI is not a valid Pope? I did not refer as all to his legitimacy or otherwise.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Last Post

I do not think that we have defined what we mean by ‘church’ in the original question.

I do not think we have established what the criteria are for identifying one true church if there was one.

I do not think that, in terms of criteria, we have suggested what such a church would do, what it would be responsible for.

I have been concerned about the life of a Christian, what it means to be a Christian, guided and comforted by one true church. Others have been more concerned perhaps about belief in doctrine, absolute truth, and acceptance of that truth.

I want to quote from a recently published book by Rev Fr Dr David Swanepoel (Being Companions of the Compassionate Christ, 2007), which makes absolutely clear the importance of reflecting, as Christians, the example of Christ as a matter of priority. I think that this is a statement of what I believe wrt much of what has gone before this posting.

Being Companions of the Compassionate Christ
4/28/2007

[There is] a need for deep thought about the nature of mission and the role of the church in its ministry to those outside the structures of the Church. I have myself become convinced that the Church needs to take seriously its place in the contemporary, post-Christian, secular world.

There was a time when the Church held a privileged position, and where there could be the assumption that all around one were members of some or other Christian denomination. That is now far from true, and the challenge to the Church of God, to each one of us, is consequently enormous. Is it possible to have our certain certainties (Eliot) challenged, and to find ourselves moving out of our comfort zone?

A starting point is to recognise that the purpose of the ministry of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ, was not essentially the establishment of a church, of a body of like-minded beliervers. The church was merely a means to an end, brought into being to effect the prime reason for the ministry of the incarnate God, the compassionate Christ. This, sadly, is a truth that is too often ignored by the Church that so easily and arrogantly assumes that it is an end in itself.

Christ starts his incarnate ministry with the words: ‘the time has arrived; the kingdom of God is upon you’ (Mark 1:15). Jesus defines the nature of that kingdom and its purpose quite clearly. Matthew (11.2-6) tells us Jesus understood the nature of the kingdom he claim to proclaim in word and deed, the purpose of his incarnation, when John the Baptist’s disciples come to him to ask him on behalf of John whether he is the one ‘who is to come’. Jesus answers by defining his ministry: ‘Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are made clean, the deaf here, the dead are raised to life, the poor are brought the good news - and blessed are those who do not find me an obstacle to faith’.

All too many of the religious people of Jesus’ day did find him an ‘obstacle to faith’. Their understanding of God and what God wanted was couched so carefuly in religious language and religious concepts that they wholly missed the purpose of God’s ‘shalom’, God’s kingdom. Jesus tries in a host of ways to correct their thinking, but the truth is not received by everyone (Matthew 7:21).

Matthew 25:31 sets out qualifications for entering the kingdom that are far from those taught and understood by the religious leaders of the day: ‘when I was hungry you gave me food; when thirsty, you gave me drink; when I was a stranger, you took me into your home; when naked, you clothed me; when I was ill, you came to my help; when in prison, you visited me…anything you did for one of my brothers here, however insignificant, you did for me’.

An examination of all the teaching on the kingdom from the Gospels reveals the very ordinary, human character it is given by Jesus. But, how hard it has been for people to accept his teaching both in Jesus’ own time on earth and subsequently the disciples want best seats when kingdom comes; Pilate is intrigued by the idea Jesus was a king, but not of this world). And during its history, the Church has all too often lost sight of its true mission and has fallen prey to giving pride of place to power and often petty matters of religious dogma and practice that break and divide the Christian fellowship rather than proclaiming the kingdom.

Too many Christians, in brief, are pleased with the correctness of their understanding of the will of God, and too ready to consign everybody who thinks differently from them to their own pre-defined concept of hell. The more they can send there, the happier they seem to be - and that is tragid in whatever degree it happens.

It is also, in my opinion, blasphemous.

…2

 

[Carol_Coombe]

…2

One of the reasons for the failure of the Church in mission, one of the reasons for the decline in active participation in the life of the traditional churches throughout the world is the reality that the priorities of the Church are all too often not those of the compassionate Christ…Piety, religious legalism and cruel judgementalism replace the essence of the gospel of the kingdom as proclaimed by Jesus Christ.

St Augustine reminded us to make real the fact that we are ‘not of the world’, only because we allow Christ to transform us through his charisms of truth, grace and love, so that we may minister ‘in the world’ especially to those who are ‘of the world’ and both seek and need to know about God’s love and to experience the compassionate ministry of Christ through our ministry of love.

The kingdom will be proclaimed by loving example, but never by coercion, criticism or intellectual argument.

Rev Fr Dr David Swanepoele
March 2007

 

[jack_hawkins]

sounds a great book - I must get a copy

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike;2152419:

Thank you. Your comments are totally off the mark, as I have indicated before. You cannot engage with the discussion, and I cannot simplify it further.

Let us agree to disagree, and call it quits. I do not agree with you; you do not agree with me. So we don’t need to talk to one another. You can put me on your ‘ignore’ list if you don’t mind.

Carol,

Once again you evade. You never answer any questions or charges about your beliefs or engage in meaningful discussion about the Catholic Faith. Instead you spew out your emply relativisitc views, pieced together from your endless supply of mystics, philosophers and historians, in a vain attempt to subvert traditional Caholic and Protestant beliefs.

Put you on my ignore list? I think not.

Iowa Mike

 

[jmcrae]

Hello everyone. May I ask a couple of questions in response to the thread?

Q: Before 1517 how many Christian denominations were there?

In the West, there were none. There was only the Catholic Church. In the East, there were the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which started off as four in 1056 - I do not know how many there were in 1517.

I was reading recently that Martin Luther tried to get the Orthodox Churches to recognize Protestantism as the “German Orthodox Church” but they refused him. I don’t know if that’s true, or not, but it was interesting that someone thought the schism of Protestantism had similarities to the Orthodox schism - it would be fascinating indeed if it was, in fact, Martin Luther himself.

Q: And which came first the bible or the church?

The Church, of course.

 

[jmcrae]

Last Post

I do not think that we have defined what we mean by ‘church’ in the original question.

Clear definitions have been provided by both Protestants and Catholics. They were all rejected.

I do not think we have established what the criteria are for identifying one true church if there was one.

Criteria were given by both Protestants and Catholics - again, rejected.

I do not think that, in terms of criteria, we have suggested what such a church would do, what it would be responsible for.

Probably because we never got that far.

I have been concerned about the life of a Christian, what it means to be a Christian, guided and comforted by one true church. Others have been more concerned perhaps about belief in doctrine, absolute truth, and acceptance of that truth.

These are not contradictory aims. Indeed, without the second, the first is impossible.