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

[afiala2]

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?

 

[BYUChemAlum]

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.

Uh, the Orthodox Church, for one.

 

[christosdavid]

Interesting thread,

I appreaciate the fact that Jesus started the church, the Catholic Church in fact and would argue this against those who claim historically the church was founded by his apostles.

The Resurrected Christ indeed gathering his disciples together in Galilee and teaching them how the Scriptures really spoke of him (Luke writing about his post-resurrection appearance on the road to Emmaeus) and gave them commission and finally instructed them to wait in Jerusalem and at Pentecost the Church was born, with the indwelling Spirit.

This same resurrected Christ converted Saul to Paul and gave him a mission,

This church is called the way, his body, a pilgrim people, and of course catholic (Ignatius).

This understanding of Church as is discovered from Scripture and Tradition is the best representation (IMHO) but the Protestants would largely agree and describe the birthday of the Church to be at Pentecost and not when the founder of their denomination began their ecclesial community.

Presbyterians then, who are Calvinist and do not ordain bishops and discount church tradition (Ignatius m.110 clearly taught about 3 ministry offices, Bishop, Presbyter and Deacons). They by calling themselves Reformed are acknowledging that the Roman Catholic interpretation came first but they are with the extra light as understood by John Calvin, John Knox etc are Reforming the church of Scotland, for example, based along Prebyterian church government and Reformed theology.

Thus, the church of Scotland existed before the reformation but was reformed along Presbyterian lines. The entrance of the church into Scotland by St. Columba and others is not discounted by Scottish people as the entrance of the gospel.

They alledge to have pruned the Roman churches inventions in Faitha nd Morals, they dont deny that the church which existed had been real when it had communion with Rome.

In essence, while I would like the Scottish people and Church to come back into full communion with Rome, the likelihood is slim and can only really forsee a continuing Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland as continuing as seperated brethren.

Other countries have similar difficulties due to national history. Denmark is a Lutheran example.

The US is as the “New World” so different in its religion possibilities and histroically after the Reformation so it has always had members of both congregations and churches, so has Australia, although the English were in power and the Irish convict settlers had less power and authority and often had to overcome the English by joining with the Scots who were free setlers.

Canada varies in different localities. South America is traitionally catholic, although this may be confused as colonialism.

So the coucil of Vatican II was clever in my opinion (who am I to disagree?) when it noticed that the curent generations of members in other churches shouldnt be charged with the sin of schism having grown up in a church other than the Roman Catholic one.

A long answer just to say that now the Reformation has had different effects in different countries and people who are Reformed may well have a preexisting national church that was catholic.

 

[afiala2]

Uh, the Orthodox Church, for one.

It is true the Orthodox Church is similar, and it is because they broke away from the Catholic Church in the 11th century. They do not have a leader similar to the Pope or saying they are the other line of Popes. This implies they are not sucessors of St. Peter and the Apostles as in the Bible. Jesus gave the keys to Peter not the Apostles collectively (but still commissioned them collectively as a group the way Orthodox view their Bishops. Catholics also view their Bishops in this way as the Pope is also the Bishop of Rome, but the Pope is also the Seat of Peter), to be Apostolic you would have to be similar to the Apostolic leadership in the Bible. Or you would have to trace your leaders back to Peter. Orthodox don’t claim to have such a line of leaders that I am aware of.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

It is true the Orthodox Church is similar, and it is because they broke away from the Catholic Church in the 11th century. They do not have a leader similar to the Pope or saying they are the other line of Popes. This implies they are not sucessors of St. Peter and the Apostles as in the Bible. Jesus gave the keys to Peter not the Apostles collectively (but still commissioned them collectively as a group the way Orthodox view their Bishops. Catholics also view their Bishops in this way as the Pope is also the Bishop of Rome, but the Pope is also the Seat of Peter), to be Apostolic you would have to be similar to the Apostolic leadership in the Bible. Or you would have to trace your leaders back to Peter. Orthodox don’t claim to have such a line of leaders that I am aware of.

Well of course the Orthodox would debate who break away from whom. Also, the Orthodox profess apostolic succession, which the Catholic Church accepts (meaning that their bishops are valid successors to the apostles), as the Catholic Church states that the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, orders, and sacraments. Orthodox have produced lists similar to that provided by Catholics showing their succession back to various Biblical apostles.

So based on this, part of the premise of your initial argument is false.

 

[hn160]

Well of course the Orthodox would debate who break away from whom. Also, the Orthodox profess apostolic succession, which the Catholic Church accepts (meaning that their bishops are valid successors to the apostles), as the Catholic Church states that the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, orders, and sacraments. Orthodox have produced lists similar to that provided by Catholics showing their succession back to various Biblical apostles.

So based on this, part of the premise of your initial argument is false.

But they are not under the Bishop of Rome and their priest may marry. Will the Orthodox commune Roman Catholics?

 

[BYUChemAlum]

But they are not under the Bishop of Rome and their priest may marry. Will the Orthodox commune Roman Catholics?

More correctly, married men are allowed to be ordained priests in Orthodoxy. This is also true in many of the Eastern Catholic churches as well. Orthodox will not commune Catholics, however the Catholic Church allows Catholics to commune at Orthodox if no Catholic parish is available. Also, Catholics allow Orthodox (and a few other churches, such as the Assyrian Church of the East) to commune in Catholic parishes.

My main point as it relates to this thread is that the Orthodox officially claim to be the “one true Church” established by Jesus Christ, claim to have apostolic succession, and the Catholic Church recognizes that apostolic succession, orders, and sacraments.

 

[Brother_Steve]

Although the Celtic Church sees itself as only one expression of God’s one holy catholic and apostolic Church among many expressions of that same Church, it holds firm to the belief that the Church is One. The ancient Celtic Church was forcibly regularized to the Roman rites at the Synod of Whitby.

e Celtic Church had continued to grow and develop in isolation from much of continental Christianity - but it never became a new or different Church, it was in all ways stayed catholic and apostolic. It took on the pastoral and tribal nature of the people it served, and preferred the more monastic-style of Christian leadership, rather than the Episcopal (Bishop-led hierarchical) style of leadership used in more urban areas of the Continent. There was considerable monastic influence from the Coptic Church (Egyptian Catholics), but whether this was a direct influence from the desert fathers of Northern Africa, or from St. Ninian as learned from St. Martin of Tours, it is difficult to gage. Very possibly, the influence came from both sources.

In time, the young and vigorous Irish-Celtic Church sent missionaries out to evangelize the nations. When Christianity again began to grow again on the island now called England, it returned in both Celtic and Roman forms. The Northern portion of the Island (Scotland and England) was primarily missionized by the Irish-Celtic Church especially in Iona. The Celtic Church was also strong in Cornwall and Wales. In the South, centering on Kent and Canterbury, the Romans instituted their missions. By this time, however, there was conflict between the two traditions of Catholicism when the Celts and the Romans came into contact.

 

[PiousTemplar]

More correctly, married men are allowed to be ordained priests in Orthodoxy. This is also true in many of the Eastern Catholic churches as well. Orthodox will not commune Catholics, however the Catholic Church allows Catholics to commune at Orthodox if no Catholic parish is available. Also, Catholics allow Orthodox (and a few other churches, such as the Assyrian Church of the East) to commune in Catholic parishes.

My main point as it relates to this thread is that the Orthodox officially claim to be the “one true Church” established by Jesus Christ, claim to have apostolic succession, and the Catholic Church recognizes that apostolic succession, orders, and sacraments.

Don’t turn this into an Orthodox vs. Catholic thread please. They both have apostolic succession and they were both part of the One True Church. Obviously we see them as schismatics and they see us as imposters. This argument is directed at protestants.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Don’t turn this into an Orthodox vs. Catholic thread please. They both have apostolic succession and they were both part of the One True Church. Obviously we see them as schismatics and they see us as imposters. This argument is directed at protestants.

If you read what I wrote, I am not saying anything about Orthodox vs. Catholic. What I am referring to is the statement in the OP that “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.”. Clearly the Orthodox Church teaches that “it is the One True Church started by Jesus Christ”. The OP further stated that “*…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. *”. Again, in my non-Catholic and non-Orthodox view, the Orthodox Church has as much of a claim to being the “one true apostolic church” without this succession of Popes, as the Catholic Church does, and as already mentioned, the Catholic Church itself accepts the apostolic succession of the Orthodox. Therefore, on those points, some of the arguments in the OP are based on false premises.

 

[valentino]

the only reason I can think of is that they think the Church is too demanding.They believe but they feel that can’t abide by all Her rules.Im Catholic.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think Jesus Christ was God. I also think the CC teaches other, untrue things and requires their members accept them. The main one, and the one that probably caused all the others, is the role given to the papacy. I can’t join the CC so long as they maintain that position.

 

[afiala2]

In essence, while I would like the Scottish people and Church to come back into full communion with Rome, the likelihood is slim and can only really forsee a continuing Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland as continuing as seperated brethren.

Keep in mind I am coming from a point of view that sees complete Communion of Believers as a Christian Concept. Why should we be divided. One Big Happy Family is a Christian Ideal. While I can appreciate the political ties of a national Church as a reason to not be Catholic, I am saying if you know the Catholic Church is the True Church who should be returning to whom. The Catholic Church has open arms (not that any other Christian religion doesn’t also welcome all) towards welcoming/instructing people interested in joining.

 

[afiala2]

Well of course the Orthodox would debate who break away from whom. Also, the Orthodox profess apostolic succession, which the Catholic Church accepts (meaning that their bishops are valid successors to the apostles), as the Catholic Church states that the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, orders, and sacraments. Orthodox have produced lists similar to that provided by Catholics showing their succession back to various Biblical apostles.

So based on this, part of the premise of your initial argument is false.

Quoting my own original post: *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, *

Just because they claim it does mean it is true. Yes Orthodox can trace back to Christ and yes they have valid sacraments, the Church recognizes Baptism from many Churches that use the valid form for example this includes many Christian churches as well. BUT Orthodox has to use the Catholic Church to trace back to Christ. The Church was called Catholic with Popes as the person holding the office of Peter before and after the scism. So what is the arguement that the Orthodox church didn’t break away? When was the Orthodox Church called the Orthodox Church before the scism? Which is the True Church between these two (you apparently are arguing they are the only two possible)? I am saying you have to pick ONE. Otherwise you are Arguing Christ started multiple churches. While Orthodox is similar it still is not in full communion with Rome and it owes its roots back to the Apostolic age to Catholicism.

 

[Tony888]

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.

 

[Bluegoat]

Quoting my own original post: *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, *

Just because they claim it does mean it is true. Yes Orthodox can trace back to Christ and yes they have valid sacraments, the Church recognizes Baptism from many Churches that use the valid form for example this includes many Christian churches as well. BUT Orthodox has to use the Catholic Church to trace back to Christ. The Church was called Catholic with Popes as the person holding the office of Peter before and after the scism. So what is the arguement that the Orthodox church didn’t break away? When was the Orthodox Church called the Orthodox Church before the scism? Which is the True Church between these two (you apparently are arguing they are the only two possible)? I am saying you have to pick ONE. Otherwise you are Arguing Christ started multiple churches. While Orthodox is similar it still is not in full communion with Rome and it owes its roots back to the Apostolic age to Catholicism.

My friend, if you want to make these claims, I’d suggest you learn some more about the Orthodox Church first.

Suffice it to say here that their claim to be the true Church is as strong as that of the Catholic Church. The names we use today to differentiate the two bodies are largely irrelevant - both claim to be catholic and orthodox. They were one organization from the beginning of Christian history, and they split largely over how they understood the role of the papacy.

Neither owes its apostolic roots to the other.

 

[Brother_Steve]

I think Jesus Christ was God. I also think the CC teaches other, untrue things and requires their members accept them. The main one, and the one that probably caused all the others, is the role given to the papacy. I can’t join the CC so long as they maintain that position.

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

The fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Cephas. It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time support this view.

We see the Apostolic Authority instated just after his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).

 

[Bluegoat]

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

The fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Cephas. It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time support this view.

We see the Apostolic Authority instated just after his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).

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.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

My friend, if you want to make these claims, I’d suggest you learn some more about the Orthodox Church first.

Suffice it to say here that their claim to be the true Church is as strong as that of the Catholic Church. The names we use today to differentiate the two bodies are largely irrelevant - both claim to be catholic and orthodox. They were one organization from the beginning of Christian history, and they split largely over how they understood the role of the papacy.

Neither owes its apostolic roots to the other.

 

[afiala2]

My friend, if you want to make these claims, I’d suggest you learn some more about the Orthodox Church first.

Suffice it to say here that their claim to be the true Church is as strong as that of the Catholic Church. The names we use today to differentiate the two bodies are largely irrelevant - both claim to be catholic and orthodox. They were one organization from the beginning of Christian history, and they split largely over how they understood the role of the papacy.

Neither owes its apostolic roots to the other.

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?