If you believe Jesus Christ is God, why aren't you Catholic?

[RKO]

Why aren’t you a member of the Orthodox Church than if you are against the Papacy? (Since you clearly know more about the Orthodox Church than me, please let me know that is why I am asking the question: When did the Orthodox Church reject the Papacy, at the time of the Schism or later?)

My point of the schism is this: I know this maybe a bad example for you since your Canadian but it is the best I can think of right now. Pretend we can change US history: lets say during the Civil War in America in the 1860s, the conflict was over whether or not that there should be a presidency instead of what actually happened. And instead of a war there was a peaceful division on this concept of government. The North remained the United States of America and kept the constitution like the USA is today. The South kept everything the exact same as the USA except in place of the presidency they had a 9 person panel made up of military generals (or politicians) and called themselves the Confederate States of America. They peaceful moved between each others borders ever since with no conflict. Now when deciding which country was the original, the USA would say we have been around since the 1770s and still have the same governing body and are still called the USA, we started in the 1770s. The CSA said their country was around since the 1770s because they trace their LEADERSHIP threw the Presidency of the USA til 1860s and then their panel ever since. Who is right? Did the CSA become a country in 1770s or 1860s. Even though USA & CSA are similar they can’t say they both started in the 1770s.

I am not agruing Apostolic Sucession, I am saying they are two different Churchs; they can’t both have been started by Christ. If they are different when did they first differ, when did they start?

I think you are drifting from your original (or the original poster’s) claim: namely that no other church can trace itself to Jesus. The Catholic Church traces its lineage back to Peter, The Orthodox traces itself to Peter’s brother Andrew. Christ sent all of the Apostle’s to the world to create the church, not just Peter. Peter and Andrew did not have a schism, other men did 1000 years later. Even if the “upon this rock” comment truly means what most Catholics believe it means, i.e. that the Catholic Church is the only true church, I wouldn’t go around discounting the work of the other apostles whom Jesus sent out to establish his church across the earth.

 

[afiala2]

afiala,
You appear to be redefining the meaning of the term Catholic.
I don’t think it is possible since most denominations don’t even agree on the meaning of the term Christian. I regret that people use definitions to differentiate and isolate, not to unite.

I am claiming the Catholic Church has the only valid argument to have the Successor of St. Peter, aka it is the One True Church started by Christ. If every Christian was in Union with the Successor of St. Peter, who was left in charge by Christ, then their would be no division. This is a fussion effort, don’t confuse it for something else.

I am meaning Catholic as referring to the Roman Catholic Church, in union with the Pope. Catholic (greek origin) meaning regarding the whole or Universal. You are the one accusing me of changing the meaning, explain why this view of the term is not accurate and what is a better use for the term. But that would be getting off the subject a little and would prefer to remain on the subject:why aren’t you Catholic (a practicing member of the Church which has the Pope, the Seat of St. Peter, as its Head, aka RCC)?

 

[Bluegoat]

Why aren’t you a member of the Orthodox Church than if you are against the Papacy? (Since you clearly know more about the Orthodox Church than me, please let me know that is why I am asking the question: When did the Orthodox Church reject the Papacy, at the time of the Schism or later?)

My point of the schism is this: I know this maybe a bad example for you since your Canadian but it is the best I can think of right now. Pretend we can change US history: lets say during the Civil War in America in the 1860s, the conflict was over whether or not that there should be a presidency instead of what actually happened. And instead of a war there was a peaceful division on this concept of government. The North remained the United States of America and kept the constitution like the USA is today. The South kept everything the exact same as the USA except in place of the presidency they had a 9 person panel made up of military generals (or politicians) and called themselves the Confederate States of America. They peaceful moved between each others borders ever since with no conflict. Now when deciding which country was the original, the USA would say we have been around since the 1770s and still have the same governing body and are still called the USA, we started in the 1770s. The CSA said their country was around since the 1770s because they trace their LEADERSHIP threw the Presidency of the USA til 1860s and then their panel ever since. Who is right? Did the CSA become a country in 1770s or 1860s. Even though USA & CSA are similar they can’t say they both started in the 1770s.

I am not agruing Apostolic Sucession, I am saying they are two different Churchs; they can’t both have been started by Christ. If they are different when did they first differ, when did they start?

Well, in many ways the Anglican understanding of the Church is very similar to the Orthodox understanding, but that will get us way off-topic!

The political situation you describe is somewhat helpful, and somewhat different than the Orthodox/Catholic situation.

Remember that in the early church the apostles went out and set up churches in many places. These were all parts of the real, unified Church, claiming decent from the apostles, each with their own bishops and apostolic sucession.

Apostolic succession and authority was not understood to come from Rome - Rome isn’t even the oldest part of the Church. Each has authority in its own right. Authority belongs to each bishop, and bishops were usually chosen by the diocese or sent from elsewhere into new lands. No one person got to choose (or remove) all the bishops. The other bishops do not have their authority through the bishop of Rome, but from the apostles.

In the schism, what you have are a number of patriarchs in a disagreement, each with his own apostolic authority. One - the bishop of Rome - goes one way, and the others another. And the issue is not that the papacy exists at all, but the particular claims that are being made about it.

So on both sides of the schism you have the legitimate apostolic authority which existed from the very beginning. No one has set up a new government.

This is why the Catholic Church recognizes the validity and authority of bishops in the Orthodox Church.

 

[RKO]

Well, in many ways the Anglican understanding of the Church is very similar to the Orthodox understanding, but that will get us way off-topic!

The political situation you describe is somewhat helpful, and somewhat different than the Orthodox/Catholic situation.

Remember that in the early church the apostles went out and set up churches in many places. These were all parts of the real, unified Church, claiming decent from the apostles, each with their own bishops and apostolic sucession.

Apostolic succession and authority was not understood to come from Rome - Rome isn’t even the oldest part of the Church. Each has authority in its own right. Authority belongs to each bishop, and bishops were usually chosen by the diocese or sent from elsewhere into new lands. No one person got to choose (or remove) all the bishops. The other bishops do not have their authority through the bishop of Rome, but from the apostles.

In the schism, what you have are a number of patriarchs in a disagreement, each with his own apostolic authority. One - the bishop of Rome - goes one way, and the others another. And the issue is not that the papacy exists at all, but the particular claims that are being made about it.

So on both sides of the schism you have the legitimate apostolic authority which existed from the very beginning. No one has set up a new government.

This is why the Catholic Church recognizes the validity and authority of bishops in the Orthodox Church.

Well said.

 

[afiala2]

I think you are drifting from your original (or the original poster’s) claim: namely that no other church can trace itself to Jesus. The Catholic Church traces its lineage back to Peter, The Orthodox traces itself to Peter’s brother Andrew. Christ sent all of the Apostle’s to the world to create the church, not just Peter. Peter and Andrew did not have a schism, other men did 1000 years later. Even if the “upon this rock” comment truly means what most Catholics believe it means, i.e. that the Catholic Church is the only true church, I wouldn’t go around discounting the work of the other apostles whom Jesus sent out to establish his church across the earth.

I am trying to have the Orthodox position (or anyone’s position) explained to me so I understand why they are the true Church and I should convert, because we are brothers just like Peter and Andrew, so why should their be divisions among us if we are a family? The Catholic view is if Andrew, Philip, Thomas or any other Apostle or subsequent Bishops fall into error Peter or the Pope was there to *unify *& settle disagreements. Catholics believe Jesus’ promise to Peter, individually, of the ability to bind and loose while He gave Peter the keys is why the Succession of the Seat of Peter is the claim to being the True Church.

Yes, all the Apostles went out, they were ALL a part of the Catholic Church united under Peter commissioned by Christ (it wasn’t referred to as Catholic until early 2nd century). At what point did the division occur? ** The Apostles were united that is my point. **Once a church stops reckonizing the authority to which it is a part of they become another church not the same because they now recognize a new authority, only one can therefore be the Church Jesus started that will not fall into error. I am simply saying I think that Church is the Roman Catholic Church. I am not discounting Anyone or any work anyone has done to spread the Gospel and am especially not discounting the Apostles or their efforts, as I said already They were all a part of the beginning of the Catholic Church; I am directly saying convince me why another Church is the One Christ started and not the Catholic Church and/or answer my question which is why you aren’t Catholic, or what teaching you disagree with, etc. which causes you not to respect the Authority of the Catholic Church.

The point I am arguing is that we are brothers whether we are Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, any denomination of Christianity, so why aren’t we united as a family as a part of the same house? If we know what the original Church is why aren’t we united. Orthodox position is they don’t believe in the teaching of the Papacy -why the schism happened (that and And the Son, but also Byzantine Emperor’s & Muslim Sultan’s didn’t help anything either). As Catholics we have far more in common to build on (practically everything theologically) with the Orthodox Church then what divides us. I am not discounting the work of anyone, I am explaining how we used to be united and now we aren’t. As a Christian, that bothers me because I see them as brothers and sisters, it is like we are from a broken home. If you are seeking truth, you are seeking Christ after all He is the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life. If Christ intended on having 38,000 different denominations He wouldn’t have claimed to teach and testify to the Truth, rather He would have started 38,000 denominations Himself.

 

[1voice]

To Catholics: So presuming someone believes in Christ’s Divine Nature or that He is in fact God, why would that person not be a Catholic? Past the ignorance and misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Church, is there any sound logical reasoning a person, who is honestly seeking the truth and God, would struggle with before deciding to convert to Catholicism? Or do we simply need more advertising of the truths of Our Faith; specifically it was started by Jesus?

To Non-Catholics, who believe Christ is God:The Catholic Church teaches that it is the One True Church started by Jesus Christ. I am not aware of any others who officially make that claim. Remember if your church made that claim, it would have had to been around since the time of Christ and His Apostles til now. Any church started during the Protestant Reformation began approximately 1500 years too late to make this claim. I have heard a few Christian churches trying to claim they have been around since then. But I would want to see the historical proof that a church has been around continually since the time of Christ, but even then the Succession of Popes of the Catholic Church is the only true proof of being the One True Apostolic Church.
So if you know Jesus started the Catholic Church and you believe Jesus is God, why aren’t you Catholic? Do you believe there is someone more important in the role of the salvation of the world than Jesus? Why do you think Jesus’ Church failed? Who started your church and why do you think it has a better chance of not failing when Christ’s did apparently? If you don’t know who started your church, why aren’t you at least a little bit curious about the Church that claims it was started by Christ?

People who don’t believe Christ is God: I understand this is off the subject for you, as you consider Jesus just a man and would mix Catholics in with all Christian religions and/or man made religions. But pretend for a moment that God was real (for an Atheist) and/or that Christ is God (non-Christian Monotheists) and answer the title question. Anyone else, use your imagination as best you can with the premise of you believe Jesus Christ is God and He started the Catholic Church and you knew this based on history. Would the only reason you would not be a Catholic is because you freely choose to reject His teachings and/or deny Christ’s existence or is there another logical reason I am overlooking?

Christianity is not a Church. It is not a Religion. It is a personal/ intimate relationship.

 

[Ensrune]

Christianity is not a Church. It is not a Religion. It is a personal/ intimate relationship.

Expanding on that thought, the Church is mentioned in the bible. So the question one should ask is what is the Church?

 

[1voice]

Expanding on that thought, the Church is mentioned in the bible. So the question one should ask is what is the Church?

“Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name… there I AM”
…Jesus

 

[kathmandu]

I believe the Roman Catholic Church has morphed from what Christ started originally and it not what He had in mind in the first place. The RCC has strayed from from Christ’s original intentions and God’s spirit is not with this church as it should be. I believe there are well intentioned Roman Catholics who are protected by God, but the RCC clergy has much to answer for due their historical and current abuses of power.

I have attended many Roman Catholic Churches in the past couple of years and find them all lacking God’s spirit. The one I was attending most recently just had one of their priests commit suicide in the rectory two weeks ago. Something very wrong there.

I have gone back to an Episcopal Church where I can feel and experience the love of God and Jesus Christ. Roman Catholicism may work for some of you but I find it comes up lacking for me.

 

[afiala2]

What am I missing, please explain specifically I am trying to learn? The Catholic and the Orthodox Churches use to be part of the same unified body in early Christianity than their was a split dispite very few differences. How does one know who to follow? Enlighten me with your opinion.

 

[christosdavid]

What am I missing, please explain specifically I am trying to learn? The Catholic and the Orthodox Churches use to be part of the same unified body in early Christianity than their was a split dispite very few differences. How does one know who to follow? Enlighten me with your opinion.

follow Jesus, the bishop (overseer) of our souls

 

[afiala2]

Well, in many ways the Anglican understanding of the Church is very similar to the Orthodox understanding, but that will get us way off-topic!

The political situation you describe is somewhat helpful, and somewhat different than the Orthodox/Catholic situation.

Remember that in the early church the apostles went out and set up churches in many places. These were all parts of the real, unified Church, claiming decent from the apostles, each with their own bishops and apostolic sucession.

Apostolic succession and authority was not understood to come from Rome - Rome isn’t even the oldest part of the Church. Each has authority in its own right. Authority belongs to each bishop, and bishops were usually chosen by the diocese or sent from elsewhere into new lands. No one person got to choose (or remove) all the bishops. The other bishops do not have their authority through the bishop of Rome, but from the apostles.

In the schism, what you have are a number of patriarchs in a disagreement, each with his own apostolic authority. One - the bishop of Rome - goes one way, and the others another. And the issue is not that the papacy exists at all, but the particular claims that are being made about it.

So on both sides of the schism you have the legitimate apostolic authority which existed from the very beginning. No one has set up a new government.

This is why the Catholic Church recognizes the validity and authority of bishops in the Orthodox Church.

It wasn’t an exact analogy but it was close. If they recognized the Seat of Peter before and now they don’t, how is that not a change in Authority (new government/new country in analogy)? If they deviate by not staying in union with the Church how do they state their claim is above the Catholics claim of being the True Church? Recognize a Pope, don’t recognize a Pope that is a conflicting idea, so who is right? They aren’t both right-who decides? Jesus left Peter with the Keys. When divisions start they don’t stop. Did you think Jesus didn’t know this was going to happen?

Again why refuse to be in full communion with the Church, you are arguing against it and you aren’t even Orthodox. Once their is a dividing line, it doesn’t stop. 38,000 denominations later, how is it hard to see the need for unity? I am saying if Catholics and Orthodox are not One, that means there is a difference. If there is a difference which one should I follow? Judas was one of the Twelve and he went his own way, Thomas doubted, and yes PETER denied, all but John left when Christ was put to death. Even Apostles are humans that sin and make mistakes. But Christ didn’t lose faith in Peter individually or the Apostles collectively. I am not comparing any Christian religion to Judas, I am simply saying disagreements will occur someone can be wrong, how is a man made Church protected from this? Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches can’t both claim to be the Church started by Christ unless they are totally unified or one in the same at which time they wouldn’t have different names, so one is and one isn’t the True Church (but that doesn’t mean they are not very similar); otherwise explain how two different churches with a few conflicting teachings that don’t recognize the same authority are the same church (the Church Christ started). If they were in communion before, that means the Orthodox recognized the Papacy. Now they don’t, why? They disagreed with the Pope the Seat of Peter and schismed, refusing to accept that the Seat of Peter wasn’t a man made concept, it was initiated by Christ.

Why is your Church the Church Christ started?, If you don’t think it is you should at least convert to Orthodox, because you apparently think they are and that the Papacy disproves Catholicism’s claim. If I am putting words into your mouth I apologize, but isn’t knowing what Church Christ started important to you as a Christian?

 

[JenniferB]

I believe the Roman Catholic Church has morphed from what Christ started originally and it not what He had in mind in the first place. The RCC has strayed from from Christ’s original intentions and God’s spirit is not with this church as it should be. I believe there are well intentioned Roman Catholics who are protected by God, but the RCC clergy has much to answer for due their historical and current abuses of power.

I have gone back to an Episcopal Church where I can feel and experience the love of God and Jesus Christ. Roman Catholicism may work for some of you but I find it comes up lacking for me.

The papacy is a biggie for me, especially in light of past immorality. How can I follow a religion that was lead at some point by immoral and shameful people? Who knows what they could have changed to the rules?

I still call myself a Catholic even though I am not in good standing seeing as I currently attend (but have not joined or been confirmed in) an Episcopal church.

Another real biggie for me is the sermon vs. the Mass. While the Mass is beautiful and full of tradition, I cannot keep myself involved in it mentally. I get list and utterly bored every time. Our Episcopal priest gives wonderful sermons that teach and give lessons that apply to our lives, all the while incorporating the Scriptures.

I may feel guilty enough and return back to the Catholic church but I know I won’t get as much out of it as I do our Episcopal church. It would just be out of obligation.

 

[afiala2]

Christianity is not a Church. It is not a Religion. It is a personal/ intimate relationship.

Who taught you that? You recognized an authority to come to that conclusion. If you did this threw private Bible interpretation, who taught you the concept of private interpretation, what authority are you recognizing? Where do you think the Bible came from (if you claim to read the Bible)? If this is your own opinion or not, study history & the Bible and tell me why you think Jesus Christ (who I hope is important when you are defining Christianity) didn’t start a Church.

 

[Brother_Steve]

Or, that’s not what they were talking about, and they do not support that view, which is the answer I am going with. Is it Peter’s position that the Church is built on, or his faith, as Augustine says? And does that mean Peter personally - or does it equally apply to his successors as Bishop? And does that mean Peter actually is the leader of the whole Church, and can appoint bishops, over-ride counsels, and is protected in some cases by infallibility? If you can “prove” all these things by those Scriptures I will be very surprised and impressed.

Historically there are a number of ways the Fathers have understood those verses, and the modern understanding is not at all clear unless you make assumptions about what they mean. Historically the early Church did not in fact operate that way. And it was the claim that it should have these new privileges that split the Church first in the Schism, and again in the Protestant Reformation.

That is why although I really believe in Jesus, I’m not Catholic. I am only sad that theconcept of leadership that Rome gave to the Protestant West has resulted in more and more division.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

 

[Ensrune]

Who taught you that? You recognized an authority to come to that conclusion. If you did this threw private Bible interpretation, who taught you the concept of private interpretation, what authority are you recognizing? Where do you think the Bible came from (if you claim to read the Bible)? If this is your own opinion or not, study history & the Bible and tell me why you think Jesus Christ (who I hope is important when you are defining Christianity) didn’t start a Church.

I think 1voice trying to differentiate Christianity from other religions. How would you define Christianity? Is it simply another religion? Another church? The word Christian only appears 3 times in the New Testament. It means follower of Christ.

 

[1voice]

Who taught you that? If this is your own opinion or not, study history & the Bible and tell me why you think Jesus Christ (who I hope is important when you are defining Christianity) didn’t start a Church.

The Holy Spirit taught me that.

I didnt mean that Jesus didnt start a Church… I meant that the true Church is based entirely on a personal relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Christianity is not simply an organization with membership based on affiliation.

John the Baptist said the same thing.

 

[kathmandu]

The papacy is a biggie for me, especially in light of past immorality. How can I follow a religion that was lead at some point by immoral and shameful people? Who knows what they could have changed to the rules?

I still call myself a Catholic even though I am not in good standing seeing as I currently attend (but have not joined or been confirmed in) an Episcopal church.

Another real biggie for me is the sermon vs. the Mass. While the Mass is beautiful and full of tradition, I cannot keep myself involved in it mentally. I get list and utterly bored every time. Our Episcopal priest gives wonderful sermons that teach and give lessons that apply to our lives, all the while incorporating the Scriptures.

I may feel guilty enough and return back to the Catholic church but I know I won’t get as much out of it as I do our Episcopal church. It would just be out of obligation.

Do you mean sermon vs homily? Yes the Episcopal sermons always teach and explain, but sometime the RC homilies do the same. It depends on the priest giving the homily. At my Episcopal church we have Mass after the sermon. It is the same format as the Roman Catholic.

I was baptized Roman Catholic. I was also baptized Jehovah’s Witness. I have had a lifelong search to be spiritually fed. I never feel fed when I leave a RC mass. Often I feel empty or angry. And I will continue to go if my husband wants me to join him to keep him company. But these days I attend the Episcopal church and would go to church a second time with him later because he prefers a 12 noon Mass.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

This thread is not about the Orthodox church.
Return to the OP and remain there.

 

[Ensrune]

The argument afiala is trying to make is that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Denomination/Church that has existed since the days of Christ. As an organization there are few other churches that can also stake that claim. Perhaps Orthodox.

The point 1voice is making is that the Church Christ built is not a man made organization headed by a human, creed, building or organization. It is the body of believers whom follow and have a relationship with Christ.