If the 12 apostles did not belong to the Catholic church...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
Given that, then, which one represents the True Reform, and succeeds to the Catholic Church as the bearer and witness of all truth?
Click to expand...
You are asking me the same question I’m asking you, which of the two, CC or OC, is the one true Church, proven from Tradition?
Obviously, I believe that Calvinism, Baptist, etc. are quite wrong. I confess the Augsburg Confession, the three ancient creeds, and believe the seven early councils to be authoritative.

Jon
 
Publisher said:
Are there not variances in practice between the various rites of the Catholic church? Do not the Eastern Catholics believe differently concerning some doctrines from the Latin church? Does this constitute a “different” chruch?
Click to expand...
They have the same Head; the Pope - and they phrase things differently; usually, more simply. It’s not a different doctrine.
Again…is your understanding concerning the Orthodox the Orthodox position…or are you giving a Catholic position concerning the Orthodox by stating they are not “one church”?
Click to expand...
I am giving what I have personally observed. I don’t know what the official line of any of the Orthodox communities is, but I observe that they do not have very much to do with each other.
 
JonNC said:
You are asking me the same question I’m asking you, which of the two, CC or OC, is the one true Church, proven from Tradition?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church, of course. John 21:15-19 settles it, for me.
 
jmcrae said:
The Catholic Church, of course. John 21:15-19 settles it, for me.
Click to expand...
Well, of course that settles it for you, and I respect and give thanks for your faith, and steadfastness in the CC. How does that solve it for me? And what in Tradition can I look to to come to the same conclusion you did?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Well, of course that settles it for you, and I respect and give thanks for your faith, and steadfastness in the CC. How does that solve it for me? And what in Tradition can I look to to come to the same conclusion you did?

Jon
Click to expand...
I have no idea what will solve it for you. Pray to the Holy Spirit, and ask Him to show you whatever it is that you need to be shown. 🙂

In my case, I was picking at the teachings of the Church for 17 years. Everything came together for me when someone said to me “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.”

That’s when it dawned on me that the Peter at the top of the list of the Popes is the same Peter who was the disciple of Jesus, and who was given the job of “Chief Shepherd of the Church.” Only one Church - a unified Church. That was my “aha” moment. 🙂
 
JonNC said:
And Catholics and Orthodox do the same, but they do it from a reference point of Tradition, as well.
Click to expand...
Actually, they don’t.
40.png
JonNC:
In fact, your scenario better relates to CC/OC than Lutherans and Baptists, since Lutherans and Baptists never sat in the same class together.
Click to expand...
Good point – we’ve now doubled the scope of the problem by holding disparate classes! :eek:
 
JonNC said:
Let’s say then, that I am willing to dispense with sola scriptura, even the Lutheran version that doesn’t exclude Tradition, how can I discern with of the two, CC or OC, is the one True Church, from TRADITION?
Click to expand...
By a study of history – from both sides.

Most differences are surface-level only. Get beneath that. Get over it. The way “original sin” is taught is an example of a surface difference. East and West approach the world differently (it’s a cultural thing) so they describe things differently. Underneath the surface the substance of the teaching is the same. The “immaculate conception” in another example of a surface difference. It is phrased in accordance with how one describes original sin, and again, underneath the cultural differences, the two sides believe the same thing.

Veneration of saints might be seen as another difference. Where I live rampant idolatry occurs in Roman Catholic churches, but I have yet to encounter it amongst Orthodox Christians. The Romans have crossed the line from proper veneration of saints into outright worship. That practice is contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, so I need to be careful with my criticism on that front.

The only difference of substance that I have been able to find is that of the definition of “papal primacy” or “primacy of Peter” or “primacy of Rome” or whatnot – there are many ways to phrase it. Here the Catholics and Orthodox genuinely have a difference of opinion. This issue is directly related to ecclesiology, of course. Study history from both perspectives, East and West. Read both sides and then you’ll know which side is right.

It’s the Orthodox, by the way, and there are 15 self-governing bodies, not seven. All of them are functionally interchangeable: a member of one church can worship at, and even take communion at, any other church.
 
chaunceygardner said:
They were all practicing Jews. They could not “belong” to any other church, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or otherwise, since none of those yet existed. They did not worship Jesus, they worshipped God (Yahweh, the “Father”), and considered Jesus “Son of God” or “Messiah”.
Click to expand...
Okay, since none of these churches (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) - existed in the apostolic age, the apostles must have belonged to a different church and of course that church must still exist. Please identify the church, in the world today, that the apostles belonged to?

Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John was a catholic by the way, so wouldn’t it be safe to say that John belonged to the CC?
 
Totterman said:
Jesus our Lords peace be whit You.
First,I like a joke my self,but when it comes to matter that has to do whit the Church,it is improper. And even moore when some one ask a question that may be ever so stupid,he still has the right to the best ansver he can get. I am offended by jokes towards any religion,not only catholic faith. A good joke now and then during the day is OK,I do so myself,but not when it comes to forums like this.
And Your question is not stupid,and will try to ansver You in the best way I can and I am sorry for those ansvers that wos a bit out of line.
All apostles did belong to the Catholic Church,back then it had no name,or no real organisation,that came first a few hundred year later. As we know from the Bible,Jesus gave St.Peter the “keys to heaven” (Matt.16:17-19) and at the same time “start” the Catholic Church. So all 12 apostles did belong to the church that now are known as the Catholic Church. So there is no “if’s”. I wish this wos what You needed to know,moore facts You find in my favorit book,and I do want you all to daily read atleast one chapter,and before you send a question here,the Holy Bible or the Catechism.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%…👍
 
simspt said:
Jesus already had in place the feasts, Priesthood the temple etc. Did he and his Apostles view themselves as starting a new Church during his ministry?
Click to expand...
Jesus said: I will build my church. So yes…
 
scottm said:
Are you sure they claim that? That’s news to me. I was a Protestant for more than 30 years and never heard that before.
Click to expand...
Yes…But I cannot speak for all non-Catholics, just the ones I have talked to…
 
scottm said:
Speaking as a 30-year Protestant, I disagree. They can and would admit that the church of the Apostles was the Catholic/Orthodox Church (there being no difference back in those days). They can and would admit that Peter was the first Roman pope, and that there is an unbroken line of Roman popes. Likewise there is an unbroken line of patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople and Alexandria.

At the same time they would, and do, insist that the Catholic and Orthodox churches strayed outside the boundaries set by the Bible. By their view the Catholic and Orthodox churches today are not teaching what the united church taught back in the early centuries.
Click to expand...
Okay…So help me find the one true reformed church that does teach what the united church taught back in the early centuries???
 
JonNC said:
Exactly.

And they (we) would be correct, at least to the extent that they are in schism. If they both still taught what the united Church taught, they would not be in schism. So, one or the other has strayed from Scripture, the ECF’s, the early councils, etc., or both have, to one degree or another.

Jon
Click to expand...
Agreed Jon. 👍 The question is: which one? We know, from scripture that Jesus sent the HS to His fledgling church to forever guide His church into all truth until He returns.
 
Hey Jon…
JonNC;7167791]How can both be the one true Church?
Click to expand...
Jon, which church believes that their church was built on Kepha as opposed to Kepha’s confession?
So, which one has this indefectibility? And how can I as a Lutheran know for sure, other than by the say-so of each?
Click to expand...
The church built on Kepha: You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church and the gates…
EDIT: Oh, and it seems to me that the gates of Hell would have to prevail against the Church Triumphant, too for it to be a Biblical Impossibility.
Jon
Click to expand...
Jon, I thought the church triumphant was in heaven? :confused:
 
joe370 said:
Hey Jon…

Jon, I thought the church triumphant was in heaven? :confused:
Click to expand...
Indeed it is, Joe, and as it is part of His Church, the gates of Hell can never prevail over it, despite the differences and divisions within the Church Militant.

Joe, maybe you can answer my question, or at least see my point: From a standpoint of Tradition, how can one know which CC or OC is the one True Church? As for Peter, I think the entire Church Catholic is built upon his wonderful confession of faith, and the strength of his actions for that Church after the Ascension.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Indeed it is, Joe, and as it is part of His Church, the gates of Hell can never prevail over it, despite the differences and divisions within the Church Militant.
Click to expand...
Except that if there is no way to know authoritatively which parts of the Church Militant are actually following the Gospel, no one can get to Heaven except by accident or else by means of invincible ignorance - which cannot possibly be what Jesus died on the Cross for.

Surely, there is some way for us to be able to know with certainty what is true?
 
jmcrae said:
Except that if there is no way to know authoritatively which parts of the Church Militant are actually following the Gospel, no one can get to Heaven except by accident or else by means of invincible ignorance - which cannot possibly be what Jesus died on the Cross for.
Click to expand...
Or by Grace, and I agree with you. Our divisions are not what He planned or called for.
Surely, there is some way for us to be able to know with certainty what is true?
Click to expand...
I’m beginning to think that it may be in the early united Church, and what it agreed on.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top