HELLO - It's Been A While... Bridging the Gaps

[benidict]

oh, one thing i can say Dokimas. i wouldnt put you in the catagory of tax collectors or a heathen. you are, by being here, listening to the Church, or those of the Church. we may disagree of course, but you have not shut down your mind to what those of this Church have to say. have you ever thought maybe of attending an rcia course? you dont have to join at the end of it. but if you can have a good priest go through the Cathechism with you, it may answer some of your very important questions. it might be interesting just as an acedemic exercise. Peace

 

[Dokimas]

oh, one thing i can say Dokimas. i wouldnt put you in the catagory of tax collectors or a heathen. you are, by being here, listening to the Church, or those of the Church. we may disagree of course, but you have not shut down your mind to what those of this Church have to say. have you ever thought maybe of attending an rcia course? you dont have to join at the end of it. but if you can have a good priest go through the Cathechism with you, it may answer some of your very important questions. it might be interesting just as an acedemic exercise. Peace

Thank you for your suggestion.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I hope this response is not part of derailing this thread. I hope it’s part of bridging the gap:

I don’t have to ask myself your question, I have the understanding that Jesus’ church is as He said and still exists. As the NT mentions many local churches (seven mentioned in Revolation 2,3 and others mentioned try the writings of Paul), the many making up the whole, so that is true today. If we notice the writings to the specific churches mentions problems within that needed correction, so today every church most likely needs correcting.

Where do you think Jesus’ church is?

What do you think the New Testament is?

Jim Dandy

 

[Dokimas]

Where do you think Jesus’ church is?

What do you think the New Testament is?

Jim Dandy

Where Jesus is, there is His church.

I don’t understand your second question.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Where Jesus is, there is His church.

I don’t understand your second question.

Your argument of an “invisible body of believers” has not merit - if this is where you are going with this retort. It is begging a question, and could easily turn circular.

 

[Dokimas]

Your argument of an “invisible body of believers” has not merit - if this is where you are going with this retort. It is begging a question, and could easily turn circular.

Was my statement incorrect?

 

[Irish_Polock]

Was my statement incorrect?

Depends on what you had meant by it, if for example you are referencing St. Matt. 18:20

20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew (RSV) 18)

You would be wrong.

Although, if you meant, where Jesus is “Body, Blood, and Divinity” you would be correct. It was a ambiguous statement that you had made, and I had left room for your clarification in my post.

 

[jmcrae]

Matthew 18:17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

This is true but where’s the evidence that this refers to your church?

By the fact that the only one in existence at the time, was ours. Peter, the first Pope, together with the first Bishops, priests and deacons, who are the ancestors in an unbroken sequence of generations, from them to us, in the Catholic Church.

There is no record in history of a time when the Pope converted from something else to the Catholic faith - which means that he was always Catholic - which means that Peter was Catholic. The Church to which the people were to take their disputes was the Catholic Church.

We can also look at the rest of the Churches in existence today, and see that their starting dates are way after the time of Christ - 1521, 1532, 1560, 1705, 1896, 1925, 1972 - so Christ could not have been referring to these.

 

[benedictus2]

I hope this response is not part of derailing this thread. I hope it’s part of bridging the gap:

I think the thread is not about how we can bridge the gap but whether it is possible.

I’ve stated my position (in many threads) that this will only happen when everyone becomes Catholic.

It is a fact that within Protestantism itself, the divide is growing as we see churches started probably even as I write this.

I do believe that unity will be achieved one soul at a time but each conversion has exponential possibilities. Hence, my challenge to you to study history.

People who have done so have arrived at the conclusion that the Catholic Church IS that Church that was started at Pentecost.

I write here a quote from Cardinal Newman (himself a convert)
And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protentatism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this …. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

So yes, I throw that challenge. You can take it up slowly; reading bits here and there. But take it up you must if you are serious about being in the church that Christ founded.

I don’t have to ask myself your question, I have the understanding that Jesus’ church is as He said and still exists. As the NT mentions many local churches (seven mentioned in Revolation 2,3 and others mentioned try the writings of Paul), the many making up the whole, so that is true today. If we notice the writings to the specific churches mentions problems within that needed correction, so today every church most likely needs correcting.

And these many churches all formed one Church. It is the same to this day. We have the churches of America, Africa, Asia, Europe. But all these are united to Rome.

If it were not so in the beginning, Peter and his successors would not have had a say in the goings on in these other Churches. That is why very early on we see a council in Jerusalem deciding doctrine. It was not a matter for these churches to decide whether to impose circumcision on converts or not. The Church has decided; circumcision was not necessary and that was that, all these churches accepted that decision.

As the Church grew and expanded, we see her tackling heresies and setting out doctrines to counter these heresies.

The doctrine on the Trinity was declared even before the canon of Scripture was determined.

So we see a Church actively promulgating doctrine even before we had the Bible as we know it.

 

[benedictus2]

Where Jesus is, there is His church.

It is true that wherever two are three are gathered in His name He is there in the midst of them.

But that does not mean that the gathering is the Church that He established on earth.

Jesus founded a specific Church. And if you do a little investigation you will realize that it is indeed the Catholic Church.

The word Catholic may not be in general usage at the time of the writing of the Bible in the 1st century but that does not matter.

When He gave the commission to the apostles to “make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” He was telling them that the Church is meant to be Catholic i.e. universal.

That it why as I mentioned before, the first and second century churches that you mentioned all belonged to this one Church that Christ established.

 

[benidict]

from the time of the Apostles to the time of the great schism between east and west, the fact was, you were either part of the one Church or you were not. there were other movements of course. the Nicholations, the Gnostics, to name a couple. but all groups outside this One Church were considered heretics by the Apostles and ECF. the east/west split is something i really have trouble grasping, so i wont even attempt it. it would be awesome though, if this rift were healed in our generation. Peace

 

[Singinbeauty]

All,
I am not asking if the gaps can be backfilled (to where there are no gaps) but if they can be bridged and we can meet in the middle. We may not agree with eachother on certain aspects but if we ignore our commonality we shed a bad light on Christ. He is big enough to bridge those gaps if only we’d let Him…

 

[Jim_Dandy]

When those verses and, as you say, the whole of the NT, were penned, in the 1st Century, the term Catholic Chruch (as a proper noun) didn’t exist as far as I can tell from the NT.

The term “Catholic Church” may have been used by the Apostles. St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, was being taken by ship, under Roman guard, to the Coliseum where he was thrown to the lions for his Faith, when he wrote seven letters to the Churches along the shipping route. To the Smyrnaeans he wrote in A.D. 107, in part, ***“Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” ***He may have learned the term from the Apostles. He was a student of St. John’s, ordained by St. Peter, and a friend of St. Paul’s. It was a commonly used term very early in Christian history.

St. Polycarp (A,D. 69/70 - 155/156), was trained by St. John. From the introduction to the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, written c. 155/156, "The Church of God which resides as a stranger at Smyrna, to the Church of God residing at Philomelium, and to all the communities of the holy and Catholic Church, residing in any place: may mercy, peace, and love of God the Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ be yours in abundance." And, in paragraph 16, "And of the elect the most wonderful Polycarp was certainly one – an apostle and phophetic teacher in our times, and a bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna."

You don’t seem to know the history of the NT. It is a collection of writings by first-century Catholics that were selected, canonized, and named the New Testament by the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century, acting under the guidance of the Spirit.

Jim Dandy

 

[ignatius777]

Hello All,
It has been a LONG while since I have been here but I am back - for now… Don’t know if any of y’all will know me but I am here to help answer / ask questions while try to bridge a gap of understanding between us non-catholics and catholics.

I feel with a bit of unity we can become such a powerhouse the world has never seen and Christ’s light could shine that much brighter. But there are some big canyons that some find hard to bridge.

Do any of you ever think it will be possible to bridge the gaps?

While I agree unified christians would be a powerhouse how do we first of all convince some non-catholic christians that catholics are christians? If we can even get some people to see us as christians then we have no common ground. My experience shows me that for non catholics if a catholic doesnt denounce their beliefs then a catholic CAN’T be a christian. Thats a MAJOR obstacle to overcome. How do you think we do it?

 

[rinnie]

rinnie

No offense, but perhaps that's a problem in Catholicism and other forms of Christianity. They can seem so tradition-bound. I understand that, because the CC teaches that its beliefs have come from the Lord himself and from early councils that were guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot therefore makes mistakes.

This, I presume, is where I have a problem. The ancient days were so different in a million different ways. I have read the Church Fathers, looking for wisdom. Guess what? I found all manner of naivite, superstition, factual errors, weird logic, etc. What a disappointment when I expected enormous wisdom and insight. True, for their era they were well-spoken and obviously intelligent, but without a decent telescope and no microscope they lived by false beliefs of their age. Disease caused by demons. No mention of germs. Heaven up above the stars. No concept of maybe a billion solar systems. Interesting theology but often primitive, if you forgive the term.

Frankly, more and more young people become well-educated in college these days, and they are not ready to put their minds under the control of someone else, not even their church. They are spiritual and could stay with the church, but not if they have to believe the unbelievable. Did Padre Pio actually bilocate and levitate? I'm sure God could have arranged that, but most modern thinkers will find such claims wildly incredible. I am one who doesn't believe it. He probably was a devout servant of God, but some of the claims made about him are far-out. And he is a modern saint! When I watch the Lords on EWTN and hear of purported miracles by earlier saints, well....forgive my skeptism.

 I want and need a reasonable Christianity myself, as do millions of others. I want to remain a faithful follower of Christ, seeking to love and serve God and humankind, without having to swallow all the theological baggage that comes with it. So often it seems that the simple message of Christ - love - is undermined by the requirement to embrace all sorts of irrelevant and outdated dogma.

 Sorry about the disagreement. I do respect difference of opinion, which is why I think the Church should be tolerant of a divergence of views when it comes to matters of doctrine. Did Mary have other children? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't consider it important. Was she sinless throughout her life? Possibly, though I doubt it. Was Jesus speaking symbolically when he claimed to be the gate, the vine, the good shepherd, etc.? Of course. Maybe he was speaking symbolically when he said 'this is my body'. I think the church should allow people to reach some conclusions on their own and still remain in the real Body of Christ.

 God bless everybody.

I understand that you think that we should be able to come to our own conclusions, But as History and Tradition has shown us God didn’t. If he felt that way why leave us a Church? I mean think about it if truth is in us, why do we need the Church the fullness of the truth to teach us and lead us. Why do we need the Church ANY Church at all then.

And as far as the truth about the Blessed Mother it is quite important to me what is truth.

I need the truth, and I know Jesus felt the same way. If not why did he leave the Apostles here in the first place. I mean after all he is God, he could just as you claim let us think for ourself? But now my question to you! Why did he leave us the Apostles and the CHurch then?

 

[ignatius777]

rinnie

No offense, but perhaps that's a problem in Catholicism and other forms of Christianity. They can seem so tradition-bound. I understand that, because the CC teaches that its beliefs have come from the Lord himself and from early councils that were guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot therefore makes mistakes.

This, I presume, is where I have a problem. The ancient days were so different in a million different ways. I have read the Church Fathers, looking for wisdom. Guess what? I found all manner of naivite, superstition, factual errors, weird logic, etc. What a disappointment when I expected enormous wisdom and insight. True, for their era they were well-spoken and obviously intelligent, but without a decent telescope and no microscope they lived by false beliefs of their age. Disease caused by demons. No mention of germs. Heaven up above the stars. No concept of maybe a billion solar systems. Interesting theology but often primitive, if you forgive the term.

Frankly, more and more young people become well-educated in college these days, and they are not ready to put their minds under the control of someone else, not even their church. They are spiritual and could stay with the church, but not if they have to believe the unbelievable. Did Padre Pio actually bilocate and levitate? I'm sure God could have arranged that, but most modern thinkers will find such claims wildly incredible. I am one who doesn't believe it. He probably was a devout servant of God, but some of the claims made about him are far-out. And he is a modern saint! When I watch the Lords on EWTN and hear of purported miracles by earlier saints, well....forgive my skeptism.

 I want and need a reasonable Christianity myself, as do millions of others. I want to remain a faithful follower of Christ, seeking to love and serve God and humankind, without having to swallow all the theological baggage that comes with it. So often it seems that the simple message of Christ - love - is undermined by the requirement to embrace all sorts of irrelevant and outdated dogma.

 Sorry about the disagreement. I do respect difference of opinion, which is why I think the Church should be tolerant of a divergence of views when it comes to matters of doctrine. Did Mary have other children? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't consider it important. Was she sinless throughout her life? Possibly, though I doubt it. Was Jesus speaking symbolically when he claimed to be the gate, the vine, the good shepherd, etc.? Of course. Maybe he was speaking symbolically when he said 'this is my body'. I think the church should allow people to reach some conclusions on their own and still remain in the real Body of Christ.

 God bless everybody.

So because they didnt mention germs the church fathers were not guided by the Holy Spirit? Is that the crux of your argument? So you sure you are guided by the Holy Spirit then because you can see hundreds of years into the future?

Really?

 

[rinnie]

All,
I am not asking if the gaps can be backfilled (to where there are no gaps) but if they can be bridged and we can meet in the middle. We may not agree with eachother on certain aspects but if we ignore our commonality we shed a bad light on Christ. He is big enough to bridge those gaps if only we’d let Him…

If I could be honest with you, in all do respect there is no meet in the middle with Christ. It is his way or no way. He left us the CC to teach us and unite us, so there should be no gaps to fill.

Is the main objective here to agree or disagree with eachother on certain aspects, or to accept the truth as Christ taught it.

God is Spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23

Now do we want our truth or the truth that is given to us by Christ?

 

[ignatius777]

All,
I am not asking if the gaps can be backfilled (to where there are no gaps) but if they can be bridged and we can meet in the middle. We may not agree with eachother on certain aspects but if we ignore our commonality we shed a bad light on Christ. He is big enough to bridge those gaps if only we’d let Him…

As I mentioned in another post some non-catholics dont even consider catholics to be christians. Without that there is no “commonalities”. BTW there are reasons why there are no bridges across oceans.

 

[rinnie]

So because they didnt mention germs the church fathers were not guided by the Holy Spirit? Is that the crux of your argument? So you sure you are guided by the Holy Spirit then because you can see hundreds of years into the future?

Really?

I like you do not see what germs and diseases have to do with the truth of God?

Also Christ cured disease just by the touch of his hands! So I am sure you would agree with me he wasn’t worried about germs

 

[ignatius777]

I like you do not see what germs and diseases have to do with the truth of God?

Also Christ cured disease just by the touch of his hands! So I am sure you would agree with me he wasn’t worried about germs

I think our friend Roy is confused by many things

I think Roy would argue that Jesus knew that facebook was coming so He was guided by the Holy Spirit but the aposttles probably didnt so they werent guided by the Holy Spirit.