Does this Prove The Catholic Church is The True Church?

[placido]

Yes, I understand that is your religious belief concerning your church…I just disagree based on historical info NOT edited or redacted by the Catholic church.

So, you accept only historical info on condition that it was not edited or redacted by the Catholic Church. In other words, you believe what other say about the Catholic Church but not what the Catholic Church say about itself. If you are not playing double standards then you must believe only what other people say about Quakers but not what Quakers say about themselves.

placido

 

[placido]

No, that is not true…the denominations do not all claim to be THE One path to God…that is a falacy I find repeated on this board by Catholics quite often.

If that is the case, then they believe Jesus established many paths while “misleading” His followers that there is only one narrow path.

placido

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH

Yes it would and one needs to ask ones self if that is what Christ teaches us to do.
Is that what the apostles chose to do in Acts 15?
No, it isn’t. But if they were around today they’d be faced with a completely different situation and it might seem good to them and to the Holy Spirit to agree to disagree.

But you see they ARE around today in their successors who have mainained an unbrken line though the “laying on of hands and the invokation of the Holy Spirit”, from Bishop to Bishop from the original twelve until today.
These successors have periodically met in local/regional/universal councils from the earliest times down to today to resolve matters and rarely, if ever, have they “agreed to disagree” on doctrinal matters.
Why you may ask??
Because God is of One mind and “Unity”, true unity, calls for His Church to be of one mind in understanding doctrine.

However, you are right in that, if the original 12 were miraculously returned to us, they would be faced with a highly complicated situation. It would be interesting to hear and see them “set us all straight”…

Peace
James
[/QUOTE]

 

[placido]

As a Lutheran, I do not consider Lutheranism to be the ONE path to God. Jesus Christ is the way to the Father. Those who believe in Christ and that he died for our sins are on the path to God. This path is shared by all Christians.

The problem with that lay in defining who is Christian because even those who doen’t believe is Christ’s divinity consider themselves Christian. They would oppose you strongly, were you to say they are not Christian.

placido

 

[Malgosia]

The problem with that lay in defining who is Christian because even those who doen’t believe is Christ’s divinity consider themselves Christian. They would oppose you strongly, were you to say they are not Christian.

placido

Good argument, placido. After all most Protestants do not believe Catholics are even Christian. That’s why they call themselves “Christian” and us “Catholics”. It should be Protestant Christian and Catholic Christian.

That’s why Protestants mostly target Catholics for conversion. They, for the most part believe we are heading straight to hell. I have encountered this being in neighborhood Bible sudies and prayer groups where Protestants were hoping to have me accept Jesus as my personal Savior and save my soul in the process.

 

[KathleenGee]

Placido…that is also what I was saying at first…

People will never understand Catholicism if they only study non-Catholic sources and history.

The Catholic Church is the working of the Holy Spirit, not arbitrating and questioning, doubting men.

Fr Dubay said in his book, ‘Faith and Certitude’, that people can have trouble with the issue of faith itself through continual doubting and lack of conviction that it is in itself an intellectual sickness…one can never come to conviction of anything absolute. We have a culture that now believes more in relativism and whittling away at anything, than that which is concrete, a solid foundation upon which something or someone can be built.

Doubts and lack of conviction will come to its end, but the Lord’s church will last forever in reference to Revelations.

 

[gcnuss]

Good argument, placido. After all most Protestants do not believe Catholics are even Christian. That’s why they call themselves “Christian” and us “Catholics”. It should be Protestant Christian and Catholic Christian.

But there are many of us who believe that Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ. As a Lutheran, I would never dismiss Catholics as not being Christian and I pray for the day when our divisions will cease.

That’s why Protestants mostly target Catholics for conversion. They, for the most part believe we are heading straight to hell. I have encountered this being in neighborhood Bible sudies and prayer groups where Protestants were hoping to have me accept Jesus as my personal Savior and save my soul in the process.

Again, you generalize too much IMHO. There is no need to seek to convert other Christians when there are so many people who do not know Christ and who need to be brought into the flock. I would never seek to lead a faithful Catholic away from the Church. I have even counseled a Lutheran who was seriously considering becoming Catholic to explore and to let the Holy Spirit guide her. She did and she joined the Catholic Church.

Your experience is not unusual. I have been approached in much the same way, usually by those who see little difference between Lutherans and Catholics. In their eyes, we are both in need of “being saved.” My usual response is that I was saved on a hill outside Jerusalem nearly 2000 years ago.

 

[KathleenGee]

GCNuss…your position is our position as well, we pray for our separated brethren…

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Publisher
Yes, I understand that is your religious belief concerning your church…I just disagree based on historical info NOT edited or redacted by the Catholic church.

Edited? So I suppose you have access to the ‘other’ ancient historical writings by other early Christian writers not ‘edited’ by the Catholic Church? Feel free to provide these writings no ‘edited’ by the RCC.

 

[Cranmer2010]

The Catholic church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its first pope…263 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

I do not believe so. Here is some food for thought:

1. The Early Church was the Church that Jesus established with the Apostles. This of course was before East and West split. Today you have of course the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church. What is problematic is that each church has a different books in their canon. How can this be if the Scriptures were compiled by the Early Church? Who is correct?
2. The teachings of Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were not teachings of the Early Church, but they are of course taught and adhered to in the Catholic church today. How can they have any credibility if they were not handed down from the Apostles as was the Eucharist?
3. When St. Jerome put together the Latin Vulgate, he was careful to set aside the apocryphical books as he translated the whole of Scripture. It was his recomendation for them to remain so. Even Hebraic Jews still today do not recognize these books as Scripture. The Catholic church however despite St. Jerome’s recomendation, the position of the Hebraic Jews and all of the errors that have been proven to exist in these books recognize these books as fully inspired Scripture.

 

[placido]

1. The Early Church was the Church that Jesus established with the Apostles. This of course was before East and West split.

That was not really a split; that was a schism. By the way, if Catholic + Orthodox = Christ’s church, where does the Anglican church come in?.

Today you have of course the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church.

No, you have the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church includes the Roman Rite. Calling all Catholics Roman is like calling all Anglicans “Episcopalian”.

What is problematic is that each church has a different books in their canon. How can this be if the Scriptures were compiled by the Early Church?

Okay, now you have different canons (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.). Which one do you prefer and why?

1. The teachings of Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were not teachings of the Early Church, but they are of course taught and adhered to in the Catholic church today.

Don’t allow yourself to be misled by words, rather concentrate on the belief itself. if the Orthodox doesn’t believe in purgatory, why do they pray for the dead?

How can they have any credibility if they were not handed down from the Apostles as was the Eucharist?

They were handed down from the apostles.

1. When St. Jerome put together the Latin Vulgate, he was careful to set aside the apocryphical books as he translated the whole of Scripture. It was his recomendation for them to remain so.

Facts to remember. Jerome was commissioned to do the job and when you are commissioned you enjoy some privileges but the one who commissioned you has the last say. You may come up with recommendations but they are not binding.
BTW, you have to take into account the reason behind Jerome’s recommendation.

placido

 

[Cranmer2010]

That was not really a split; that was a schism. By the way, if Catholic + Orthodox = Christ’s church, where does the Anglican church come in?.

THE Anglican church became separate from Rome not only following the refusal of Henry’s annulment, but also during a time of great abuses and walking away from Scripture by Rome.

No, you have the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church includes the Roman Rite. Calling all Catholics Roman is like calling all Anglicans “Episcopalian”.

 

[placido]

THE Anglican church became separate from Rome not only following the refusal of Henry’s annulment, but also during a time of great abuses and walking away from Scripture by Rome.

That is very important that you admit that the “Anglican church became separate”. Some Anglicans come here saying the Anglican Church existed as a separate church from the 1st century.

I don’t think so. The Episcopal church is not central to all Anglicans as is Rome to Catholics.

Roman Catholic is not central to all Catholics either. A Chaldean Catholic (for example) is not Roman Catholic, yet he or she is Catholic. Unfortunately you don’t seem to know the difference.

Which books are truly inspired and which ones are not. You can’t have it both ways.

The question is not which books are “truly inspired”. The question is who has the authority to say which books are truly inspired. In short, you and me depend on someone to tell us which books are truly inspired.

Same reason we do, because we do not feel that the end of physical life is the end of being made holy. That doesn’t have to include a place of purification which does not lend itself to the teachings of Scripture.

If praying FOR the dead need not “include a place of purification”, then that is a vain exercise. Why pray for the dead if that is useless?

They were not. If they had been, the Orthodox church would include them in its doctrine.

It seems you believe the Orthodox Church is infallible – whatever they teach is true; whatever they don’t teach is untrue. Is that what you are really saying?

Just because Rome had the final say doesn’t make it right.

I am not arguing on whether Rome was right or wrong; I was just informing you that Jerome was commissioned by the Pope to do the translation. And even if Jerome was opposed to the Deuterocanonical books (your Apocryphal books), he was not the only church leader around. The majority of his contemporaries accept those books as inspired. I do understand why you would rather try to create an impression that Jerome was the only church leader around while ignoring his contemporaries.
By the way, in his later years Jerome did indeed obediently accept the Deuterocanonical books and he defended their status as inspired Scripture.
But no, you would rather ignore that part of the story …

placido

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Church did not walk away from Scripture. It never has…

What people were reacting to were the abuses of the clergy not only in money, but in sins of the flesh. At the same time, the bishops of Basel, Switzerland were declared heretics immediately before Luther. At the time immediately preceding the Reformation, there were so many problems that it was impossible to prevent the following events.

Our universal catechism draws from Christ, His apostles and the teachings have not changed, but have been expounded upon to help guide us through every generation.
Certain regions had alot of abuse. There were other regions in the church that were not having the problems of Europe.

The basic problem went back to the ecclesiastics. The issue is not leaving Scripture, but becoming part of the world, giving into greed and the flesh, and ecclesiastics not disciplining and punishing errant clerics – be they bishop or priest.

It is the Holy Spirit Who works through the Church and sustains it. The Lord prunes and lets go of those who do not bear good fruit, and brings in those who will restore His church.

Another woman here on CAF said this past year, during the media blitz to discredit any credibility of the Church during Holy Week, 600 people came into the church for the Sacraments of Initiation – baptism, confession, and Holy Eucharist.

 

[Wesley7]

Does this Prove The Catholic Church is The True Church?

No.