I'm not "protesting" anything...

[Maccabees]

Angainor:

People keep saying things like that, but it isn’t so. Protestants seek to understand the Thruth the best they can.Of course they think it is true, they wouldn’t believe it otherwise.There is but one Truth, and we all seek to understand it the best we can.

Since all protestants understanding of the Bible is limited and finite and the scriptures came through a vehicle not of personal interpretation but general revelation through the church wouldn’t the truth be found in the same way though general revelation through the church. The NT Bible, the apsotles creed, nicean creed, the athanasius creed and the basic foundations all christians agree upon came though the catholic church and not one protestants understanding of the faith. Your limit yourself though such an indiviudlaistic understanding of the Bible and of course Lutherans uinderstand their faith though the understanding of one falliable, lmited man, Martin Luther.

 

[Katholikos]

Angainor:

For me, I know Jesus was the Truth. Jesus tought the deciples. The deciples wrote The New Testament. The New Testament is the closest thing I am aware of to the Truth. That is why I look to it primarily.

Jesus was the Truth.
Jesus taught the Apostles.
The Apostles taught the early Church.
The Church wrote the NT and much more; she selected the contents and canonized the NT and formed the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old.

Very few Apostles wrote anything. Their disciples – second generation Christians who were not eyewitnesses – wrote most of the NT

The NT is not an instruction book in Christianity.

Christ left a Church as our teacher. The Church, in turn, produced the Bible.

Unlike all Protestant organizations, the Catholic Church didn’t come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church.

The NT the mirrors the teaching Church; it is a reflection of what the Church was teaching at the time it was written.

Who is more likely to know what the NT means, the Church that wrote it, or Martin Luther interpreting it in the 16th century?

Christians should look to the Church that wrote the NT for the Truth of what it means.

Peace be to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers.

JMJ Jay

 

[Malachi4U]

Fidelis:

…variations and mutations…are Protestant…

“Mutations!” That’s great! I like that word. It fits well.

I wish we had esteem points back on this forum, you just went up hundreds in my book!

Keep up the great and insightfull work.:clapping:

God bless,

 

[dennisknapp]

Angainor:

For me, I know Jesus was the Truth. Jesus tought the deciples. The deciples wrote The New Testament. The New Testament is the closest thing I am aware of to the Truth. That is why I look to it primarily.

But the New Testament is not always clear, of course. You would be right to look to some kind of corroboration. No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briaers. Luke 6:43-44

Good fruit cannot come from false Truths. The fruit that comes from claims of truth are one way to evaluate truth.

Another way would be to constantly compare claims of truth to what we know in our hearts. We are not completely blind to truth. God gave us a conscience, even if its voice is often a whisper.

I would like to add that we KNOW truth because it is self-evident and does not contradict itself. Truth as a concept does not rely on you or me for its validity, only on itself. What is being discussed here are truth claims. Truth claims are true if and only if they are PROVED to be true. This cannot be done by our feelings, hearts or conscience because they are subjective and therefore have not bearing on the world outside ourselves. This can best be done through reason using the tools of logic and investigating the evidence.

So, you need to show that your truth claim is true by the us of logic and evidence, not your own opinion.

Peace

 

[mercygate]

Angainor:

For me, I know Jesus was the Truth. Jesus tought the deciples. The deciples wrote The New Testament. The New Testament is the closest thing I am aware of to the Truth. That is why I look to it primarily.

But the New Testament is not always clear, of course. You would be right to look to some kind of corroboration.No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briaers. Luke 6:43-44

Good fruit cannot come from false Truths. The fruit that comes from claims of truth are one way to evaluate truth.

Another way would be to constantly compare claims of truth to what we know in our hearts. We are not completely blind to truth. God gave us a conscience, even if its voice is often a whisper.

Thanks. That helps. For me, recognition of the Truth of the Church came when I recognized that the reason I believed the Gospel had as much to do with facts as with faith. Looking at the history of the first 100 years of the Church, it was clear that believers had based their faith on something so concrete that they were willing to be tortured, mutilated, and killed rather than deny it. So if from the evidence of both Scripture AND history, Jesus is, indeed, God, then if he said he would found a Church on Peter, give him the keys of the Kingdom, pray that his faith would not fail, and that Peter should strengthen the brethren, and feed and tend the lambs and sheep – if Jesus is God and he SAID all of that, then I needed to believe that he meant it and that he would do it. Only the Catholic Church retains all of the marks promised by Christ.

The recognition was a horrible feeling. Took me decades to capitulate to the facts.

 

[Katholikos]

Angainor:

The catholic church is made up of the community of all true believers.

What is your evidence for this?

The “invisible church of all true believers” was a doctrine invented by Luther. It made its first appearance in the historical record in the 16th century. It contains within its own premise the assumption that there are Christians of differing beliefs, which was not true in the early Church. The Apostles taught the One True Church, not a myriad of “churches.” If the Apostles had taught this, the early Christians would have believed it and there would be evidence of that belief. But the first of these “true believers” was Martin Luther himself.

Saul (St. Paul) did not persecute an “invisible church.” Nor did Christ teach such a doctrine. The Church He founded was indeed visible – else how could have He have instructed his followers to “tell it to the Church” when there were disputes among them (Mt 18:17)? Have you ever talked to an invisible church?

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Angainor:

The catholic church is made up of the community of all true believers.

What is your evidence for this?

The “invisible church of all true believers” was a doctrine invented by Luther. It made its first appearance in the historical record in the 16th century. It contains within its own premise the assumption that there are Christians of differing beliefs, which was not true in the early Church. The Apostles taught the One True Church, not a myriad of “churches.” If the Apostles had taught this, the early Christians would have believed it and there would be evidence of that belief. But the first of these “true believers” was Martin Luther himself.

Saul (St. Paul) did not persecute an “invisible church.” Nor did Christ teach such a doctrine. The Church He founded was indeed one and visible (though it has an invisible component – i.e., the Church Triumphant in heaven). Otherwise, why would have He have instructed his followers to “tell it to the [one and only] Church” when there were disputes among them (Mt 18:17)? Have you ever talked to an invisible church?

JMJ Jay

 

[jman507]

What exactly is the catholic church? The one with the little c.

 

[abcdefg]

Angainor:

…but for the lack of a better term, you may call me Protestant.

Seriously though. Do you also think the term “Protestant” is just a left-over label that isn’t really appropriate in this day and age?

If I say you must recognize pope’s authority and infallibility, will you protest?

 

[Joannes]

There is no such thing.

jman507:

What exactly is the catholic church? The one with the little c.

 

[Booklover]

Angainor:

The age of the institution doesn’t impress me. As long as the institution wishes to put itself between me and my salvation I want nothing to do with it. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life…” The Pope can ex-communicate me all he wants. The Pope has no authority over my soul, Jesus does.

The Catholic Church is a human institution, and human institutions can get off track… just look at the Old Testament. The Old Testament outlines a continuous cycle of falling away and getting pulled back.

Please don’t ban me from the forum or anything. I didn’t mean to go off on an anti-Catholic rant or anything. You just got me a little worked up. I wouldn’t call myself anti-Catholic, it just isn’t for me and I wanted you to know why

Forgive me for asking, but why are you here? No one is going to ban you from the site but you’ve stated the “Catholic Church is not for me” and that’s it! I just don’t understand. Do you feel animosity towards the Church? If you’re not interested in the Church why bother to come here?

We do get a bit tired of people who come here to express their dislike of our Church. None of them really know what the Church is all about! They come with preconceived ideas that are not true.
Could you explain a little more?

 

[Booklover]

jman507:

What exactly is the catholic church? The one with the little c.

The word “catholic” means universal. I’m assuming that our friend means Christianity in general.

 

[INRI]

Angainor:

The catholic church is made up of the community of all true believers. I do not have a list of individual names. I do not claim that everyone who calls himself Lutheran is on the that list. I have no doubt Catholic names are on the list.

Angainor,
I appreciate your courage in coming onto the CA forums. I know it can sometimes seem like “me against the world” when you go into hostile territory. Thankfully, we are all brothers and sisters in the Lord, even if incompletely.

I want to take issue with your above statement because, logically, it is impossible. The catholic church as a spiritual body of all believers seems attractive at first. However, it is a way of spiritualizing the meaning of “church” out of existence so that the term is meaningless. It was also a concept invented by the reformers to cover over their justifiable embarassment at the rampant splitting up of the movement, even though Christ prayed “That they may be one”.
If the church consists of all believers, then it would be a funny type of church that teaches that:

1. That baptism is regenerative AND that it is just a symbol without any power.
2. That the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ AND that it is just a symbol.
3. That the pope is the Vicar of Christ and the anti-Christ.
4. Praying to the saints is helpful AND that one should pray to God alone.
5. God predestines only an elect to be saved AND that God wills that all may be saved.
6. That statuary is OK for a church building AND that statuary is the making of “Graven Images”
7. That only men may become priests AND that both men and women can become priests.
8. That services should take place on Sunday AND that the services should only take place on Saturday.
9. That all true believers will be raptured up before the tribulation AND during the tribulation AND after the tribulation
10. That one cannot lose their salvation AND that one can lose their salvation.
11. Entry into the church is via praying the “sinner’s prayer” AND that it isn’t.
12. That we enter heaven after having our remaining imperfections burned away in purgatory AND that we enter heaven as “dunghills covered in snow.”

The examples can be multiplied, but you get my point. And these are official teachings of various bodies of the “Body of Christ” as you would define it.
Christ could not have desired division, he could not have desired, as Martin Luther put it, “as many theologies as heads”.

How to sort through the competing claims? Go look at the original source material of the early church to see what THEY believed. Don’t go to a commentary, go to the original stuff. It’s easily available on the CA site and at bookstores. I’m not going to tell you to convert; just draw your own conclusions from a common-sense reading of the early church fathers. Good luck!

 

[Fidelis]

Angainor:

If you mean the catholic Chuch then I agree completely. “Catholicism” evolved sometime later.

a) I do not believe Luther was an “authority”, in the sense that what he said was true simply because he said it. If Luther shined a light on exisiting Truths, then he was a good teacher.

b) I do not believe Luther started my Church. My church is the catholic church. The catholic church is. I entered into that church with my baptism. Luther did start what we call the Lutheran Church, which is an association of members within the catholic Church with similar beliefs.

This is so funny. It reminds me of someone, I think it was GK Chesterton, who quipped that the Anglican version of the history of the Church as something like “And then, the Roman Catholic Church was created when it went into schism from the Church of England.”

 

[mercygate]

Fidelis:

This is so funny. It reminds me of someone, I think it was GK Chesterton, who quipped that the Anglican version of the history of the Church as something like “And then, the Roman Catholic Church was created when it went into schism from the Church of England.”

As a former Anglican, I can attest that half of us actually BELIEVED that the Pope broke away from the Church of England, and the other half were in agony over the causes of the split.

 

[Katholikos]

To Fidelis and Mercygate:

 

[Angainor]

jman507:

What exactly is the catholic church? The one with the little c.

It is the universal church of all true believers, without regard to human divisions known as “denominations”.

 

[Angainor]

INRI:

I want to take issue with your above statement because, logically, it is impossible. The catholic church as a spiritual body of all believers seems attractive at first. However, it is a way of spiritualizing the meaning of “church” out of existence so that the term is meaningless. It was also a concept invented by the reformers to cover over their justifiable embarassment at the rampant splitting up of the movement, even though Christ prayed “That they may be one”.
If the church consists of all believers, then it would be a funny type of church that teaches that:

1. …

To that I would say that there are just certain things that are more important than others. For example, you don’t really have to believe in purgatory to go there.

 

[Angainor]

Booklover:

Forgive me for asking, but why are you here?

I like to challange my own views. How better to do that than to have discussions with people of differing opinions?

 

[Fidelis]

Angainor:

To that I would say that there are just certain things that are more important than others.

Really? And just who has the authority to decide what things are more important than others? Unless the whole exercise is subjective which, of course, renders it meaningless.