Help with a paper against the CC

  • Thread starter Thread starter dje101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dje101

Guest
Hi all,

I found this paper a LONG time ago when I was researching why the CC is NOT the true church of Christ. I just found it again tonight while cleaning out some file from my computer. If some of you wouldn’t mind, could you possibly read this document and provide some feedback as to its claims? I’m not quite knowledgeable of the CC and the bible to make arguments and need a bit of help. Thanks everyone!

God Bless
 
The title itself reveals a false premise on the part of the author:
Is the Roman Catholic Church the Only Church of Christ?

First, the Church does make the claim that she has the corner market on truth.

Second, the “Roman” or Latin Rite is but one of 23 rites that make up the Catholic Church. Excessive usage of a 15th century insult (“Roman”, Romanist”) is usually the mark of an anti-Catholic.

Third, *Dominus Iesusis *the only Church document the author refers to, including a few CCC quotes (taken out of context, as usual) . Nowhere in the entire declaration is the term “Roman” to be found.Third and a half, Ut Unum Sint is a declaration on ecumensim which predates Dominus Iesusis and one should not be taken in isolation of the other, a common mistake made by Catholics and anti-Catholics.

In keeping with the context of the article, what the title should say is, “Is the Invisible Protestant Headless Church the Only Church of Christ that the “Roman” Catholics Fell Away From in the 1st Century? That is the truth of Field’s premise and it is obviously absurd.

The topics to be addressed include:
What does the Bible teach about the Church?

In other words, what is Michael A. Field’s private opinion on what the Bible means, minus historical and cultural context?

What is required for a valid Eucharist?
In other words, what is Michael A. Field’s personal opinion on what constitutes a valid Eucharist?

Is “apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders”
necessary?

In other words, what is Michael A. Field’s definition of apostolic succession?

What is the role of the Pope in the Church?

I wouldn’t give any credibility to the Calvinoid theory that Jesus gave out 12 sets of keys. That’s enough for one day.
 
This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, (Titus 1:5)
As indicated in the above verse, local Christian communites need validly ordained bishops to be considered proper local Churches. Local Orthodox Churches have validly ordained bishops and so are considered proper local Churches. Because Protestant “Churches” lack validly ordained bishops, they are defective and are not considered proper local Churches. Rather, they are considered ecclesial or church-like communities.

With respect to the Eucharist, St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing about A.D. 107, in his letter to the Church at Smyrna, chapter 8, said:
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
 
Todd_Easton said:
This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, (Titus 1:5)
As indicated in the above verse, local Christian communites need validly ordained bishops to be considered proper local Churches. Local Orthodox Churches have validly ordained bishops and so are considered proper local Churches. Because Protestant “Churches” lack validly ordained bishops, they are defective and are not considered proper local Churches. Rather, they are considered ecclesial or church-like communities.

With respect to the Eucharist, St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing about A.D. 107, in his letter to the Church at Smyrna, chapter 8, said:
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Click to expand...
Act 15. I believe also mention something like that. you cna see how the Church has to come to defend the flock from false teachings.
 
dje101 said:
Hi all,

I found this paper a LONG time ago when I was researching why the CC is NOT the true church of Christ. I just found it again tonight while cleaning out some file from my computer. If some of you wouldn’t mind, could you possibly read this document and provide some feedback as to its claims? I’m not quite knowledgeable of the CC and the bible to make arguments and need a bit of help. Thanks everyone!

God Bless
Click to expand...
This should help you.

thecatholictreasurechest.com/index.htm
 
The great Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ upon the Rock has been under attack since its inception. It is still with us today, as Jesus told us it would be.

Some of the anti-catholic propaganda is intriguing in its format, the language used, and by the scandalous claims made against the church.

At some point in time we have to decide, do I enter this battered but holy church or leave it. Now consider where we are. We are no longer in the Garden of Eden. We are in the domain of the evil one. We should expect anti-catholic propaganda here.

As a contrary indicator, this propaganda points toward the one true faith. I say, enter this one, holy, and apostolic church with great joy!
 
kepha1 said:
The title itself reveals a false premise on the part of the author:
Is the Roman Catholic Church the Only Church of Christ?

First, the Church does make the claim that she has the corner market on truth.

Second, the “Roman” or Latin Rite is but one of 23 rites that make up the Catholic Church. Excessive usage of a 15th century insult (“Roman”, Romanist”) is usually the mark of an anti-Catholic.

Third, *Dominus Iesusis *the only Church document the author refers to, including a few CCC quotes (taken out of context, as usual) . Nowhere in the entire declaration is the term “Roman” to be found.Third and a half, Ut Unum Sint is a declaration on ecumensim which predates Dominus Iesusis and one should not be taken in isolation of the other, a common mistake made by Catholics and anti-Catholics.

In keeping with the context of the article, what the title should say is, “Is the Invisible Protestant Headless Church the Only Church of Christ that the “Roman” Catholics Fell Away From in the 1st Century? That is the truth of Field’s premise and it is obviously absurd.

The topics to be addressed include:
What does the Bible teach about the Church?

In other words, what is Michael A. Field’s private opinion on what the Bible means, minus historical and cultural context?

What is required for a valid Eucharist?
In other words, what is Michael A. Field’s personal opinion on what constitutes a valid Eucharist?

Is “apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders”
necessary?

In other words, what is Michael A. Field’s definition of apostolic succession?

What is the role of the Pope in the Church?

I wouldn’t give any credibility to the Calvinoid theory that Jesus gave out 12 sets of keys. That’s enough for one day.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top