D
- Status
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Calbreese
Guest
Oh, you betcha! Hey, just look at this from the eternal perspective of God and Heaven where there is no limiting time like this 4th dimension…
That’s Gods religion and judgement on the last day …His Religion, with a name known to no one but Himself, so it can apply to all peoples…right there in Scripture…Jews are saying it’s our first coming, Christians second, who cares----it is the last Coming. So, the question of “one true church” is muted by the bigger question of is there one true religion? And then, even that is dwarfted by the most important question…“is the lord first in your heart?” Eternity with or without your Creator. SKDB
Code:
They see our past, present and future like a mural. They know the future we will chose with our free will. Revelation 19:11+ allows all eyes to see and bow at the Coming.
Can you imagine anyone seeing the Messiah on horseback leading an army of angels on horseback and not be humbled?
D
distracted
Guest
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
J
Janet_S
Guest
I am a Catholic, and I agree with you that God did not make things simple. To join the CC and follow what she teaches involves hard work and sacrifice and often ridicule and criticism. It takes a lot of faith and courage to live a Catholic life. That’s why so few Catholics actually follow what the CC teaches. To claim that God established a Church doesn’t automatically mean He made it easy for us. To be a Catholic is not simple or easy–ask anyone who tries to live by the CC’s teachings.
C
Contarini
Guest
I agree entirely. I was not attacking Catholicism as a whole, but a certain way of thinking I see in some posts on this forum.
Edwin
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
I have tried to catch up on 26 pages of material, but surely one of the problems with this question is that two people may agree that there is one true church, but have different definitions of what they mean by such a statement. Unless we all define “church” the same this question can’t be answered.
The term “church” is itself used to refer to different things in Scripture. Sometimes it refers to a gathering or assembly of believers in one particular setting. Other times it refers to all believers every where who belong to one another by virtue of all belong equally to Christ. There are even Old Testament Septuagint in which the Greek word ekklesia (from which we get our English word “church”) where it refers to any great multitude without regard to belief, and others in which it gives solemn emphasis to the special character of people dedicated to God. And then often people mean even other things beyond these multiple biblical definitions when we use the word in English to refer to buildings and worship services. So, unless we can reach agreement on what we mean by the term “church”, I don’t see how we can reach agreement on whether or not there exists one true church.
For me the term “church” is inclusive of all believers (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and others) who belong to Jesus Christ.
The term “church” is itself used to refer to different things in Scripture. Sometimes it refers to a gathering or assembly of believers in one particular setting. Other times it refers to all believers every where who belong to one another by virtue of all belong equally to Christ. There are even Old Testament Septuagint in which the Greek word ekklesia (from which we get our English word “church”) where it refers to any great multitude without regard to belief, and others in which it gives solemn emphasis to the special character of people dedicated to God. And then often people mean even other things beyond these multiple biblical definitions when we use the word in English to refer to buildings and worship services. So, unless we can reach agreement on what we mean by the term “church”, I don’t see how we can reach agreement on whether or not there exists one true church.
For me the term “church” is inclusive of all believers (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and others) who belong to Jesus Christ.
J
Janet_S
Guest
The way you define “church” is a very popular notion now, but is this in line with historic Christianity? According to the Nicene Creed from AD 323, the true Church must have these 4 marks: it must be 1)one, 2)holy, 3)catholic (universal), and 4)apostolic.
I can see in your definition of “church” the possibility of 2 of the marks – holiness and universalism (or catholicity). But as for the other 2 – unity and apostolicity (Apostolic succession) – they are clearly missing from you definition.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
If Nicea is right, then Christ was wrong. No Church with all 4 of those elements exists any longer.
There is neither a universal church nor unity in the church today. I include the Catholic church in that statement, specifically because the Catholic church won’t recognize the entire body of Christ, but only its portion thereof. And because it will not recognize its oneness with other non-Catholic Christians in Christ but seeks to get them to “return home”, rather than recognizing them as already present in Christ, it actually creates disunity within the body.
Given that I don’t think Christ was wrong, then it must be the Council of Nicea’s definition which is lacking. And it could also be that unity and apostolicity exist but not in the way that the Catholic Church typically looks for them.
J
jmcrae
Guest
If Nicea was wrong, then Christ lied to us about preserving the Church from the gates of Hell.
If the Church went off the rails before Nicea or at Nicea (that is, if it became possible for the Magesterium to proclaim as doctrine statements that are not true), then the Christian religion does not exist at the present time and has not existed since before Nicea - which means that any statements made either at Nicea or afterwards have no validity - including any statements made about the Bible, since the Bible was not defined until nearly 80 years after Nicea - which means that we have neither a Church nor a Bible at the present time.
J
Janet_S
Guest
The CC does recognize other Christian churches. Still, we can’t redefine the meaning of “Church” just because we have despaired of ever achieving Christian unity. Christ prayed that we may be one (John 17). We have a duty to strive towards that.
I don’t think you have a correct understanding of how the CC views other Christian churches. Just for the record, here is what the CC believes about the nature of the Church (from Documents of Vatican II – Lumen Gentium and UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO):
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.*
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
- Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
J
Janet_S
Guest
And if Nicea is wrong about the marks of the true Church, then it wasn’t led by God the Holy Spirit. If it wasn’t led by the Holy Spirit, it could have been wrong about this as well:
**We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic **Church anathematizes.
newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Yeah, those who don’t like my comment, “if Nicea was right, then Christ was wrong” actually make my case for me.
If the gates of hell are not to prevail against the Church, then the church was continue to exist. But, according to Nicea it can only exist when those 4 marks are present: it must be 1)one, 2)holy, 3)catholic (universal), and 4)apostolic.
Now, I submit to you, unless you consider all protestants to be part of the Church, that there is no universal Church. Unless you understand that we are one in faith with Catholics because we worship the one and same Lord Jesus Christ (even if on other issues we disagree), then there is no unity. Unless you recognize that our teaching from the word recorded by the Apostles is what it means to be Apostolic then that two is lost.
Protestants too proclaim the Nicean Cread and belief in one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic Church. We believe that we are a part of that. But if Catholics reject that as true of us, then Catholics are rejecting part of the Church of Jesus Christ, are saying that there are Christians outside of the body of Christ. And thus the Church has not been preserved. That would make Christ a liar. Given the chocie between those two options, I’ll agree with Christ, and continue to maintain that it is the Catholic Church that has erred in its understanding of what the Church is. So, I will correct myself. It wasn’t Nicea that was wrong, it is the present day understanding of Nicea as promulgated by the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church that is wrong.
JanetS, I find your first post helpful in where it in part reflects on how there is room for those who are not members of the Catholic Church as a denomination to still be part of the Church as we all move toward catholic unity. A little more movement in that direction and perhaps we will see that there really is just one Church again, even though it presents many facets of itself to the general public, that there is still just one body.
If the gates of hell are not to prevail against the Church, then the church was continue to exist. But, according to Nicea it can only exist when those 4 marks are present: it must be 1)one, 2)holy, 3)catholic (universal), and 4)apostolic.
Now, I submit to you, unless you consider all protestants to be part of the Church, that there is no universal Church. Unless you understand that we are one in faith with Catholics because we worship the one and same Lord Jesus Christ (even if on other issues we disagree), then there is no unity. Unless you recognize that our teaching from the word recorded by the Apostles is what it means to be Apostolic then that two is lost.
Protestants too proclaim the Nicean Cread and belief in one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic Church. We believe that we are a part of that. But if Catholics reject that as true of us, then Catholics are rejecting part of the Church of Jesus Christ, are saying that there are Christians outside of the body of Christ. And thus the Church has not been preserved. That would make Christ a liar. Given the chocie between those two options, I’ll agree with Christ, and continue to maintain that it is the Catholic Church that has erred in its understanding of what the Church is. So, I will correct myself. It wasn’t Nicea that was wrong, it is the present day understanding of Nicea as promulgated by the teaching magestrium of the Catholic Church that is wrong.
JanetS, I find your first post helpful in where it in part reflects on how there is room for those who are not members of the Catholic Church as a denomination to still be part of the Church as we all move toward catholic unity. A little more movement in that direction and perhaps we will see that there really is just one Church again, even though it presents many facets of itself to the general public, that there is still just one body.
J
Janet_S
Guest
If you accept the Nicean Creed, then I assume you accept this Council was led by the Holy Spirit. What did the Fathers of Nicea teach about the nature of the “true” Church and the 4 marks that identify her? This should be easy enough to find out since we have the writings of the Fathers available to us.
I’m glad you found my post helpful. I suggest you read the rest of Lumen Gentium for a clearer understand of the CC position.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Which it is. The Catholic Church did not lose these characteristics, even though a great many members left during the early 1500s to participate in various forms of the Lutheran and Calvinist heresies.
Why? We did not consider the Arians to still be part of the Church when they left to start up the Arian religion. (A much greater percentage of Catholics became Arians in the 4th century than became Lutheran or Calvinist in the 16th century, and yet no knowledgable Protestant seriously contends that Arianism is an acceptable form of Christianity for people to follow.) Same with Nestorianism, the Gnosticism, Manicheism, and others - all of whose members surely saw themselves as faithful followers of Jesus Christ, but simply not in unity with the Pope in Rome - and obviously they believed that in the areas where they disagreed with the official teachings of the Church, they were right and the Church was wrong (otherwise they would have returned to the Catholic Church).
What is so different or special about Protestantism? Why does it need to be treated differently than other heretical movements?
How is it that we remained One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the time period of every other heresy, but not this one?
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
So, I understand that you consider these other groups not just to be not in unity with the Pope in Rome, but also to be non-Christian in their beliefs. Do you think of all non-Catholics as non-Christian?Which it is. The Catholic Church did not lose these characteristics, even though a great many members left during the early 1500s to participate in various forms of the Lutheran and Calvinist heresies.
Why? We did not consider the Arians to still be part of the Church when they left to start up the Arian religion. (A much greater percentage of Catholics became Arians in the 4th century than became Lutheran or Calvinist in the 16th century, and yet no knowledgable Protestant seriously contends that Arianism is an acceptable form of Christianity for people to follow.) Same with Nestorianism, the Gnosticism, Manicheism, and others - all of whose members surely saw themselves as faithful followers of Jesus Christ, but simply not in unity with the Pope in Rome - and obviously they believed that in the areas where they disagreed with the official teachings of the Church, they were right and the Church was wrong (otherwise they would have returned to the Catholic Church).
What is so different or special about Protestantism? Why does it need to be treated differently than other heretical movements?
How is it that we remained One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the time period of every other heresy, but not this one?
J
jmcrae
Guest
These movements were all Christian heresies - in that sense, of course they were Christian. But they also did leave the Church, and there is, after all, only one Church.
I am perfectly sure that all of the individuals involved were well-intentioned and doing their very best to serve God, because I cannot personally imagine someone coming up with a heresy, or following a heresy, merely in order to spit in God’s eye - that seems like a totally insane thing to do, and I do not think that anybody has ever done that on purpose.
But they did follow the deceits of their own hearts rather than the teachings of the Church, and they did refuse to be corrected by the Church, and no matter how well intentioned they were, the end result, objectively speaking, was heresy.
- Status