If the Catholic Church is wrong, which non-Catholic denomination is right?

[wlychan64]

The Catholic answer to that question would be that because the decisions of the Catholic Church on faith and morals (and faith and morals ONLY) are protected by the Holy Spirit, we have the guarantee of God that a mistake could not have been made, since the compilation of the Bible would be a matter of faith. Only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have that protection. Without it, there is no way to guarantee the process. It is one of the primary reasons I’m a Catholic.

Suppose you can’t trust their judgment. By that logic, the Docetists or the Gnostics could have been right all along! Maybe the compilers made a mistake! Really, the only other alternative is to completely trust the judgment of those that compiled the Bible, and hope that they studied the problem thoroughly, always remembering that they are flawed human beings. If you do that though, can you really guarantee that those books are inspired?

Would you rather trust men, or men protected by the Holy Spirit?

I have just joined this forum.

Sir, tell me why the only protection comes from the Catholic Church alone? can you enlightend me with reference to the bible, the church teaching and the pope pls?

wlychan64

 

[kalt]

You tried to call me a relativist a while back, and I told you I wasn’t. I am not gonna repeat myself.

I do not believe any certain denomination is completely right. Not even the RCC.

If you know what’s wrong in each of the denominations, you must be able to pick out what is right and cobble together, from the many, a set of true beliefs. Have you ever attempted to pull the truth from all to make one, flawless set of beleifs?

 

[SD_Catholic]

I have just joined this forum.

Sir, tell me why the only protection comes from the Catholic Church alone? can you enlightend me with reference to the bible, the church teaching and the pope pls?

wlychan64

Perhaps rolltide will answer also… but in rolltide’s post he was discussing how Catholics can feel protected because of who compiled the Bible… If you can’t trust the teachings of those that compiled the Bible then why would one trust the book they compiled… I’m not sure this is what you were looking for, but I wasn’t sure you realized where his statement arose from.

SD

 

[JRKH]

I have just joined this forum.

Sir, tell me why the only protection comes from the Catholic Church alone? can you enlightend me with reference to the bible, the church teaching and the pope pls?

wlychan64

I do not wish to interfere with whetever information that Rolltide or others might provide but I just want to quickly comment.

In the part I underlined I would say that you have nearly answered your own question.
If we change, “the pope” to “Sacred Tradition” then we would have the “three legged stool” that mutually support each other.
The First is: The teaching Authority of the Church which Christ gave to the Apostles
The Second is: “Sacred Tradition” by which the original teachings, including interpretations, understandings and various nuances were passed from generation to generation.
TheThird is: The Bible, Sacred Scripture, which was compiled and canonized by the proper understanding of the first two things, (teaching authority and Tradition).
Without the first two things being properly in place it is impossible to have assurance that the third thing (the Bible) is correct.

Please note that my placing the Bible last is simply a cronological issue and not an issue of “importance”. In fact, the Church views each thing as of equal importance as, in each case, the other two rely on it. So it is understanding the proper relationship between the three pieces rather than trying to “proof” one from the other that is key.

If you’d like to read some more about It, here is a link to the Catholic Catachism that talks about “**THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION **”.
This is an excellent online catachism. If you go to the bottome of the page you will find a search engine for it. This is a good way to look up anything you might be interested in.

Peace
James

 

[IAGladfelter]

Some of us would simplify the whole thing this way: (1). In Christ’s prayer in Gesthesamane, (John 17) He prayed that all his followers might be one. (2). This prayer was not answered in the negative. (3). Therefore, the various divisions which split Christ’s Church were not God’s will; neither are the present divisions in the Church. They are the result of man’s will alone, and in direct opposition to God’s perfect will. (4). Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church simply is Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; headed by the successor to St. Peter, as Christ ordained when he appointed St. Peter the head of the Church, its first Pope. (5). From this it follows that the Roman Catholic Church is not now and never has been “off the rails,” and never will be.

So what are we going to do about it. How long should mistakes be allowed to continue? Until Christ returns? Shouldn’t we be doing something - anything - to beginning pulling them back to the Bishop and Church of Rome? The Home to Rome organization (EWTN) and the Anglican Use Pastoral Provision is a good start, as are the discussions with the Greeks and Russians. But is that all? Shouldn’t we all be doing something?

Some of us are also working from within the Lutherans and the Anglican Continuum as a “5th column” working toward the same end from within those Communions (as well as for our own inclusion into the Catholic Church in Rome’s/God’s own timing.) Please pray for the reunion of the Church - ut unum sint!

Blessings,
Irl

“Life creates problems. We must move move forward and not be afraid to make mistakes. But don’t cover up the problems, and don’t let the mistakes go on for too long.” - Nguyen That Thanh (a.k.a. Ho Chi Minh)

“To be deep in History is to cease to be a Protestant.” - John Henry Cardinal Newman

 

[wlychan64]

I do not wish to interfere with whetever information that Rolltide or others might provide but I just want to quickly comment.

In the part I underlined I would say that you have nearly answered your own question.
If we change, “the pope” to “Sacred Tradition” then we would have the “three legged stool” that mutually support each other.
The First is: The teaching Authority of the Church which Christ gave to the Apostles
The Second is: “Sacred Tradition” by which the original teachings, including interpretations, understandings and various nuances were passed from generation to generation.
TheThird is: The Bible, Sacred Scripture, which was compiled and canonized by the proper understanding of the first two things, (teaching authority and Tradition).
Without the first two things being properly in place it is impossible to have assurance that the third thing (the Bible) is correct.

Please note that my placing the Bible last is simply a cronological issue and not an issue of “importance”. In fact, the Church views each thing as of equal importance as, in each case, the other two rely on it. So it is understanding the proper relationship between the three pieces rather than trying to “proof” one from the other that is key.

If you’d like to read some more about It, here is a link to the Catholic Catachism that talks about “**THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION **”.
This is an excellent online catachism. If you go to the bottome of the page you will find a search engine for it. This is a good way to look up anything you might be interested in.

Peace
James

Dear James

Thanks for the reply.
I will refer to the online article and study it carefully.

Once again, thanks for the sharing. Whether I agree with you or not, I have learnt more from this forum each day.

best wishes
wlychan64

 

[wlychan64]

Perhaps rolltide will answer also… but in rolltide’s post he was discussing how Catholics can feel protected because of who compiled the Bible… If you can’t trust the teachings of those that compiled the Bible then why would one trust the book they compiled… I’m not sure this is what you were looking for, but I wasn’t sure you realized where his statement arose from.

SD

Sir,

Thanks for the feedback.

1. I am not placing any mistrust on your words and belief;
2. There is nothing wrong for me not to know where the statment comes from. I humbly submit that this is the purpose of this forum to find out from others what I do not know whether or not I agree with the others, if I may say so, sir.

Thank you

wlychan64

 

[JRKH]

Dear James

Thanks for the reply.
I will refer to the online article and study it carefully.

Once again, thanks for the sharing. Whether I agree with you or not, I have learnt more from this forum each day.

best wishes
wlychan64

That’s the way to be!!
One of the great things about the Catholic Church IS the Catachism. It is a wonderful resource and I am sure you will find the one I linked to useful. It is searchable and user friendly.

Peace
James

 

[wlychan64]

Since you have NO interest in what the RCC or any other denomination says, then you have NO RIGHT to say that the Catholic Church has no right to declare someone a saint, or to use your words, “judge who is in heaven and who isn’t”.

Since you have no idea of what a saint in the Church is, or how the process works, or any interest in learning the process, or listening to those who can explain it, then you have no right to make ANY statement derogatory to the Church.

I realize that you are only 16 years old and have a lot of learning yet ahead of you, but to sit at your computer and in one sentance declare that you don’t care about RCC history or anyone’s denomination, and then in another sentance declare that the Church has NO RIGHT to do something within it’s own structure, is the Height of Arrogance.

I am sorry to be so harsh on you, and maybe I’m just out of sorts since yesterday was a VERY bad day for DW and I, but frankly, the way your posts are running begins to sound very baiting and trollish. I don’t believe that this is what you are trying to do or be, but this is what it reads like to me.

Peace
James

Dear James,

I am back and I have checked the previous posts as I am a new comer to this topic.

Two questions that I wish to seek your views or hear from you:

What is the significance of Saints in the Catholic Church and on what basis they are appointed in the reference to the bible?

and

Why Mary had been assumed given she is not a prophet? I must state clearly that I respect her very much not just because she was mother of Jesus but she was very faithful and loyal to Our Lord. However, I have heard some criticism not against the church but that the Pope (who died in 1958) made this declaration which coincided with Holy Year 1950, etc. I also find this doctrine with little reference to the bible.

I am not challenging the teaching of the church. I want to learn more about these two issues that puzzle me. I am grateful for your kind feedbacks. I cannot guarantee that I would agree with you but I appreciate your sharings and respect you for your faith to the Catholic Church.

Best wishes
wlychan64

 

[SD_Catholic]

SD Catholic;5130295:

Perhaps rolltide will answer also… but in rolltide’s post he was discussing how Catholics can feel protected because of who compiled the Bible… If you can’t trust the teachings of those that compiled the Bible then why would one trust the book they compiled… I’m not sure this is what you were looking for, but I wasn’t sure you realized where his statement arose from.

SD

Sir,

Thanks for the feedback.

1. I am not placing any mistrust on your words and belief;
2. There is nothing wrong for me not to know where the statment comes from. I humbly submit that this is the purpose of this forum to find out from others what I do not know whether or not I agree with the others, if I may say so, sir.

Thank you

wlychan64

Oh you certainly may… You were not wrong in asking about his statement, I just thought it might be helpful to know the context in which he made it…

It is a relief to actualy have someone ask questions and mean it, rather than have them try to tell us what they think we believe and then attack it… I think a discussion can be fruitful when approached in the manner you present

SD

 

[zerinus]

If the Catholic Church is wrong, which non-Catholic denomination is right?

Aren’t different denominations, different because they all hold different beliefs and have different rule-sets?

Why, for instance, would someone here choose to be a Baptist as apposed to being a Methodist?

….Baptist right….Methodist wrong?

I find it interesting that there exist so many Protestant non-Catholics here, who argue the differences between their own denomination and Catholicism but have nothing to say about the differences between, their denomination and other non-Catholic Christian denominations.

What’s up with that?

Is this caused by an inherent trait among all Protestants to continue protesting Catholicism? Is this Protesting, “protesting” of the Catholic Church, something that has been built into these different denominations?

Or…is this simply a case of denial?

Or…a case of being disingenuous?

Maybe, simply… hypocrisy?

How much of this is caused by ego?

You tell me, with all of the differences, which exist among Protestant denominations, why so much attention given to the Catholic faith?

Is this a case of jealousy, or maybe it is because, deep down inside, all Protestants know that the Catholic Church is the true Church started by Jesus Christ.

I believe that, for many, especially “former” Catholics, it is a rebellious act, because they themselves have done something that has caused their own separation from the Church and now they have to rationalize why, they were right and the Catholic Church was wrong.

Please explain why the Catholic Church gets so much attention from non-Catholics. Maybe it is simply because we are the oldest and largest Christian community…You tell me…is that it?

Or….maybe the Devil is in play here….

Finally, it seems to me that Protestants here, are real forgiving and show that Christian charity towards other non-Catholics here but for some reason can’t forgive, respect and be charitable to the other Christians here….the Catholics!

Note: Many of my comments here are of a general nature, and do not apply to everyone.

Your thoughts?

That is a good question, and very interesting too. I hadn’t notice this thread earlier, and now it would take too long to read through all of it; but I did look through it very quickly, and read all of your posts, just to get the feel of the thread.

You are not the only one who has ever been puzzled by that question. Another person who was puzzled by the same question was a young 14 year old boy who lived in the early 19th century by the name of Joseph Smith. He found a novel answer to it. Being young and inexperienced, he figured that the best person to ask about that question was God. He did, and this is the answer he received:

Joseph Smith—History

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

(That, by the way, refers to the Protestant ministers who were contending for converts in the religious revival that Joseph had encountered at that time. There were no Catholic ministers or priests involved in that. It doesn’t refer to all Protestant ministers either. It refers only to the ones that Joseph Smith had encountered.) And that is how the LDS Church was born. The LDS Church is not a Protestant church. It is a Restoration, not a Reformation. It is a new dispensation of the gospel. If the Catholic Church is broke, a reformation can’t fix it. Only a restoration can fix it. If the priesthood authority is lost, a reformation can’t bring it back. Only a restoration can. And that is what the LDS Church is. So in answer to your original question:

If the Catholic Church is wrong, which non-Catholic denomination is right?

The answer is short and simple. The right church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for all the reasons explained above.

zerinus

 

[Daedelus76]

I actually don’t think the Catholic church is wrong all that much, but there are just things I could not accept. Like Papal infallibility, extra Marian dogmas being infallible teaching, the fact that the Papacy at one time was basicly a nation state (the Papal States in Italy), even though Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world”. There are some Orthodox that would have the same issues with Catholics, as well.

I chose the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition in the end. Maybe eventually I will move on to another church (it really depends on what the Anglican Communion does). However, the basic beliefs that alot of other Protestants attack Catholics over, such as saints, icons/images, Marian beliefs… these things don’t bother me. They are also part of the Anglican tradition to some extent, and actually they mostly were well-settled issues of the Ecumenical Councils until reformers like Calvin and Zwingli challenged them. As far as I’m concerned, any Protestant body that rejects them, had better find a better reason than the ones I usually hear.

I know Pope Benedict has extended an invitation to Continuing Anglicans to join the Catholic church, but there are actually differences beyond just the Papacy. Anglicans have a married priesthood (in some cases, married bishops), often at least female deaconesses are allowed, and their beliefs are more like the Orthodox on many things (Marian beliefs are closer to the Orthodox - the Virgin Mary is “Blessed”, but it isn’t spelled out in what manner she is holy, even though the Anglican attitudes about her are closer to the Orthodox or Roman Catholics than other Protestant bodies.). They also, like the Orthodox, have a favorable view of some uses of contraception (though not all are so inclined). Anglicans also favor more lay parcticipation in matters of authority, and hold the Scriptures as more basic in their authority. They also have a latitudinal or tolerant approach to theological disagreement (within reason- we are talking about predestination vs. arminianism, those kinds of things, not so much moral issues). Some Continuing Anglican churches have sent out feelers to the Vatican that would seek reunion provided that the Anglican traditions are respected.

 

[JRKH]

Dear James,

I am back and I have checked the previous posts as I am a new comer to this topic.

Two questions that I wish to seek your views or hear from you:

What is the significance of Saints in the Catholic Church and on what basis they are appointed in the reference to the bible?
Well I’m not sure I understand your question as it relates to the Bible, but I will try to answer and hope I hit the mark.
Those persons who have been declared saints by The Church are those who, during their lives, demonstrated lives of great holiness and virtue. They are persons who the Church holds up as as worthy of emulation. That is the primary significance of Saints in the Church. As for biblical references, I would point to the transfiguration as an example that clearly demonstrates the those holy persons who have passed on are alive, with God, and conscious of what is happening on Earth.
In the writings of St Catherine, (in “The Dialoges”) she relates that God told her that the souls in heaven bring the love they have for those still on earth with them and contually pray for the salvation of souls on earth. I know that is not biblical, but it is a profound image.

and

Why Mary had been assumed given she is not a prophet? I must state clearly that I respect her very much not just because she was mother of Jesus but she was very faithful and loyal to Our Lord. However, I have heard some criticism not against the church but that the Pope (who died in 1958) made this declaration which coincided with Holy Year 1950, etc. I also find this doctrine with little reference to the bible.

I am happy to try and help.

Peace
James

 

[look3467]

Faith comes not by any religious structure, but by the word of God in you.

As a child, I had within me this God consciousness that had been with me till today.
I am 62 years old.

I can tell you from first hand experience, that God is with you regardl4ess of what religious structure you pertain to.

It is all part of the growing experience that He guides you through the path of life.

If you are a young person who has the feel of God in you, you have the presence of His spirit guiding you.

Go with that spirit to where ever it leads you, for He will not let you down.

Mean while, if you feel safe within the Catholic Church, I encourage you to remain there.

When God wants you to experience something new, He will direct you.

But your soul is never in danger of loosing it’s salvation, for Jesus already paid the price for it with His blood.

Build upon that foundation, a joy and a desire to worship God with all your heart, soul and mind, as is the first commandment.

Truly, God loves you, and wants you to enjoy His presence to the utter most in this world.

The different denominations are there to fit other peoples needs, since God is not limited to anyone church, but committed to anybody’s heart when they offer to let Him in.

Love your neighbor regardless of what belief system they have, for that is the second Commandment, and you shall have complied with your honoring Christ.

Blessings, Aj

 

[wlychan64]

Well I’m not sure I understand your question as it relates to the Bible, but I will try to answer and hope I hit the mark.
Those persons who have been declared saints by The Church are those who, during their lives, demonstrated lives of great holiness and virtue. They are persons who the Church holds up as as worthy of emulation. That is the primary significance of Saints in the Church. As for biblical references, I would point to the transfiguration as an example that clearly demonstrates the those holy persons who have passed on are alive, with God, and conscious of what is happening on Earth.
In the writings of St Catherine, (in “The Dialoges”) she relates that God told her that the souls in heaven bring the love they have for those still on earth with them and contually pray for the salvation of souls on earth. I know that is not biblical, but it is a profound image.

and

I have to plead a fair amount of ignorance on the subject of the Assumption.
Perhaps **THIS ARTICLE **will help

I am happy to try and help.

Peace
James

Thank you very much for your sharing.
I start to appreciate about the status of saints
They set good examples to us.

As to the Assumption, I will read the article later

Best wishes
wlychan64

 

[wlychan64]

wlychan64;5133288:

Oh you certainly may… You were not wrong in asking about his statement, I just thought it might be helpful to know the context in which he made it…

It is a relief to actualy have someone ask questions and mean it, rather than have them try to tell us what they think we believe and then attack it… I think a discussion can be fruitful when approached in the manner you present

SD

Sir, thank you for your reply. Speaking on my part, I want to learn from others rather than to attack others with their views. I cannot guarantee that I can accept others’ views but I will not critcise them. I am here to observe, to learn and to share. After all, I also make friends on this forum. The Catholic I have met on this forum as devoted and firm to their belief. I respect them including you and James very much

Best wishes alwayswlychan64

 

[KoCLLB]

I believe that most non-catholics think thier denomination is the right one. If non-catholics truly look at the catholic church with an open heart they will find,just as I did,that the Catholic church is the church established by Jesus Christ.

God Bless

 

[SD_Catholic]

The different denominations are there to fit other peoples needs

Blessings, Aj

This is true in that they are there because of what others feel their needs are, but I can’t imagine that’s the way God planned it… I think we must continue to strive for knowledge and understanding of what God wants for our needs, not what we need out of God. You make some good points, but I’m sure you know that to say you should never fear for your soul is not a statement Catholics adhere to… But since there are plenty of threads covering this topic I will leave it at that for now.

SD

 

[look3467]

SD Catholic

I can fully appreciate honesty in the way you express yourself.

“God allows” because He made us in His image and can not take that away.
To allow is to give us the ability to choose, otherwise, He could have made robots.

The diversity of all things is what makes the ability to choose become the point of individual generation.

For the individual to exercise that ability, is the point of birth, the birth of individual expression, love generated towards God and one another.

An expression that can only be made good by taking responsibility, given two opposing views to choose from, and making the right choice.

Denominations are allowed by God for individuals so that God may reach them, due to all the differing opinions of how we should honor God.

The underlying truth, is that love should bind them all together.

Therefore making divisions the source to exercise love, that must first be born in the heart.

Religious beliefs aside, let love be our guide.

Blessings, AJ

 

[racing59]

I respect your point of view. I am in the same place in my life. Why is it one Church has to be wrong for another to be right? We all see through a clouded glass. I believe the greatest sin a man can commit is to think he knows more than God. Love concures all evil in this world ( God so loved the world he gave his begotten Son). I feel all denominations are right for that person. John 14 states he send us the Holy Spirit to guide us, I could not agree with you more.It is the Holy Spirit that guides us all, if we trust in him, but if we do not have Love we are a banging gong and a clashing symbol.They will know we are Christian by our Love and not by our words.

SD Catholic

I can fully appreciate honesty in the way you express yourself.

“God allows” because He made us in His image and can not take that away.
To allow is to give us the ability to choose, otherwise, He could have made robots.

The diversity of all things is what makes the ability to choose become the point of individual generation.

For the individual to exercise that ability, is the point of birth, the birth of individual expression, love generated towards God and one another.

An expression that can only be made good by taking responsibility, given two opposing views to choose from, and making the right choice.

Denominations are allowed by God for individuals so that God may reach them, due to all the differing opinions of how we should honor God.

The underlying truth, is that love should bind them all together.

Therefore making divisions the source to exercise love, that must first be born in the heart.

Religious beliefs aside, let love be our guide.

Blessings, AJ