I'm struggling in my denomination

[JohnStrachan]

I’m having a hard time understanding what you mean by “authority.”

Who makes the decisions? Who calls the shots? I’m not a sola scriptora Christian, but what is the authority that determines what Christ meant. Sort of like a supreme court interpreting a constitution. There are historic teachings like women clergy, same-sex marriage, divorce, etc. By whose authority does a denomination have to change these teachings. These are universal teachings taught since the time of Christ. Why would the United Church of Canada (very liberal) believe they have authority to undo 1900 years of practice? Is the Holy Spirit guiding their decision to change but equally guiding the RC Church to resist? Both can’t be correct.

 

[Wannano]

It seems logical that both can’t be correct but does that mean they both can’t be wrong?

There are other denominations who believe the same as the CC does on those issues but the CC does not consider them correct or valid.

 

[White_Tree]

Who makes the decisions? Who calls the shots?

Thank you. That clears things up quite a bit.

Those things you described are matters related to human institutions. Therefore, the person in the position of authority within the human institution (e.g. pastor, president, bishop, etc.) makes decisions governing the activities of that institution. That doesn’t mean they always make the right decision, but they have the power to make those decisions and have those decisions be binding on the institutions they govern.

what is the authority that determines what Christ meant.

Ultimately, only Christ truly knows what Christ meant. Anyone else is just guessing.

They may be capable of making a very good, very educated guess. They might even make an inspired guess. But at the end of the day, it’s still a guess. The only one who genuinely knows what was going through Christ’s head is Christ himself.

(We could say that about anyone, by the way. You can say words, and other people based on an understanding of the meaning of those words, can use those words to guess at what your thoughts are. But only you truly know what your thoughts are. I think we’ve all experienced times when we felt we were misunderstood, despite our best attempts to communicate our thoughts or feelings.)

By whose authority does a denomination have to change these teachings. These are universal teachings taught since the time of Christ. Why would the United Church of Canada (very liberal) believe they have authority to undo 1900 years of practice?

Any denomination can teach anything it wants. That doesn’t make those teachings right.

But a denomination is a human institution. And according to the rules and bylaws governing human institutions, there are certain human beings with authority to determine the official pronouncements and actions of those institutions. So naturally, the authority for those humans to change the teachings comes from the rules and bylaws of the denomination itself.

Is the Holy Spirit guiding their decision to change but equally guiding the RC Church to resist? Both can’t be correct.

Personally, I think it’s neither. It seems to me like this is a case of humans disagreeing with other humans.

The United Church of Canada and the Catholic Church make decisions with respect to their own institutions. The United Church of Canada has no authority over the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church has no authority over the United Church of Canada. They are separate institutions. There is no conflict because they have separate constituencies. That is, people are a member of either one church or the other, not both, and they choose to submit themselves to the discipline of their chosen church.

 

[White_Tree]

Since we’ve cleared up what you mean by authority, I feel better about coming to your original questions.

do you believe your church has the authority to teach definitely?

Yes, I think my church, as a human institution, has the authority to teach. As for “definitely” (meaning, “free of all ambiguity, uncertainty, or obscurity”), I have my doubts that any human institution can do that with respect to religion.

Religion inherently deals with that which is mysterious. There is always some part of it that is obscure or unknown. Not even Christ taught in a way that was free from all uncertainty or obscurity. Look at all the different interpretations of his words!

If not, how does that make you feel about it’s teachings then? Do you believe your denomination got it right? And if so, what is it about your denomination that sets it apart from the authority of any other church?

I’m pretty confident we got it right, or at least “right enough.” Not because of any “authority,” but because our method works.

The purpose of religion (or religare) is to re-link, or re-bind ourselves to God. And as the saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” The teachings and methods we use accomplish that re-binding, and we know it because we experience it. I’ve experienced the effects of our methods, and many other people I know have too. At least half of my friends are mystics; they’ve experienced the reality of the Divine; they know with absolute certainty the reality and goodness of God. There is no need for blind faith or belief, and no one is waiting for death to see if they got it right. And they weren’t born that way. They developed that capacity through the diligent application of rigorous discipline over the course of many years.

Do I think we’re right about everything? No, of course not. No one is right about everything.

Maybe the “perfect” pudding would use a little more sugar, or a little less milk. But the pudding we have is very good. It’s working fine for us, and I’ve been very happy with the results.

 

[Crusader13]

I’m a cradle Catholic, but what sealed the deal, in terms of my understanding of the Church, was how the Church is shown as the new Israel.

If ancient Israel was always meant to be one United Kingdom, it makes sense that the Church would need to fulfill this better than what preceded it.

In fact we see at the end of Solomon’s reign, the Kingdom is divided and there is division amongst the tribes. This shows all to well the meaning of “a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand”. Which it didn’t. Even the future sadducees and Pharisees were butting heads.

When Jesus came on scene, He was trying to save Israel and bring the lost tribes back under one fold. Only this time it wasn’t going to be the nation of Israel, but the Church.

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.
Matthew 21:43

That nation is the Church.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1 Peter 2:9

No other Protestant denomination fulfills the role of the Church. In fact the reformation only succeeded in dividing the Kingdom. There is one Faith, one Lord and one baptism. Only one holy nation. Not a loosely affiliated collection of differing churches.

 

[fhansen]

When and how did the church deviate???

 

[Wannano]

JohnStrachan:

How is this determined? I can get two people in a room to discuss Matthew 25 and it’s implications for how to orient our lives and come up with radically different perspectives.

And this does not begin to address the further issue of the many lesser intelligent people that simply cannot “discuss” the issue with any reasonable conclusions.

Peace!!!

Who are these “many lesser intelligent people”?

That has a Donald Trump ring to it.

 

[adf417]

Who are these “many lesser intelligent people”?

Really? Do you believe everyone is of equal intelligence?

Peace!!!

 

[Wannano]

Of course not that’s why I asked you to identify who you are referring to.

 

[fhansen]

The Catholic Church does indeed consider them correct on those points. And welcomes any agreement. She’ll affirm that they don’t have the fullness of truth, in all areas.

 

[Wannano]

Does affirming that others do not have the Catholic fullness of Truth but rather have parts of truth mean that the others do not have the leading of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Lucy_1]

I’m wondering what your unresolved issues are, and if they’re doctrinal in nature. If there is Catholic teaching you don’t agree with, then essentially you’re accepting your authority over a 2000 year old institution. I’m a protestant convert, and to me, that’s pretty much the bottom line. And I say that with compassion, because there is a lot of stuff in the Church I have a hard time with.

 

[Wannano]

Ephesians 4:3 instruction is given to “endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

I like this thought: Believers are not required to create unity but to keep the unity that already is theirs in Christ. (Romans 12:5.) An organic oneness based on Christ as the common center.

Unity is not union " being connected to one another" ; not uniformity " being exactly like one another" ; unanimity “always agreeing with one another”.

 

[OddBird]

Do you believe your church has authority?

I don’t believe that any longer.

Their ‘universal Church’ consists of all ‘true’ believers and does not require either apostolic continuity or a specific teaching authority.

I’m not sure I’d say that though. The way my own tradition sees it, the one Church of Christ is indeed the “invisible” church, the body of all believers. It does, however, require a certain apostolic continuity, in that it still needs to affirm that the faith it holds is the faith of the apostles – or there would be little point in being a church at all.

However, if that’s the theory, in practice my tradition gave up on upholding dogma and having any kind of authoritative stance long ago, with the predictable consequences.

 

[Wannano]

It’s a paradox for me too in many ways but I also read that the CC at one time excommunicated the laity for countering the practice of the Church. In other discussions on this forum, Catholics have expressed how wonderful it is that they certainly do not do that kind of thing now. Which tells me that the Church who never changes has indeed changed. I don’t see much advantage in jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

 

[Gorgias]

I do believe that in the Middle Ages the RC church did deviate from what Christ intended.

In what way? In doctrine? Or in practices?

If in practices, do you believe that these practices have since been amended?

I don’t think Protestants believe in that sort of Church. Their ‘universal Church’ consists of all ‘true’ believers and does not require either apostolic continuity or a specific teaching authority.

I agree with that assessment. To be fair, if they did continue to hold to the notion that there was “one true Church”, then they wouldn’t be able to deal with the cognitive dissonance that their entire Reformation movement was all about creating multiple communities and eschewing the “one true Church” dynamic.

Who are these “many lesser intelligent people”?

That has a Donald Trump ring to it.

LOL!

For me, it brought the recollection of Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment to mind!

It’s a paradox for me too in many ways but I also read that the CC at one time excommunicated the laity for countering the practice of the Church. In other discussions on this forum, Catholics have expressed how wonderful it is that they certainly do not do that kind of thing now.

Umm… the penalty of ‘excommunication’ still exists.

Wannano:

Which tells me that the Church who never changes has indeed changed.

I think it’s important to be precise here: the Church never changes doctrine and dogma. However, ‘disciplines’ may change, based on prudential judgment and the situations of various times and places.

Thinking that the Church monolithically is in stasis is a misunderstanding, though.

 

[fhansen]

I can tell you this, many people claim to have the leading of the Holy Spirit and still disagree with each other on significant points on the faith. Would the holy Spirit be divided within Himself? The real problem is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which has opened the door to a lot of confusion and division within Christianity.

 

[fhansen]

Does affirming that others do not have the Catholic fullness of Truth but rather have parts of truth mean that the others do not have the leading of the Holy Spirit?

There’s “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph 4:5). As to lordship, going by scripture alone people sometimes disagree over the deity of Jesus. As to faith, whether seen as belief or as a body of beliefs, going by scripture alone people disagree on what defines both of those things, on what they consist of. As to baptism, going by scripture alone a most common disagreement is over whether baptism even regenerates (saves) or not!

We know that Christ established one Church. Should we really think that He wants disunity of such beliefs in it? Is there one Holy Spirit, or many? Everyone who declare themselves to be
Spirit-led in their beliefs are doing the same thing BTW-making the claim that their beliefs exclusively are the right ones. And everyone draws the line somewhere, as to what constitutes the bare minimum of right belief.

 

[adf417]

Of course not that’s why I asked you to identify who you are referring to.

If your “of course” is an honest answer then you would be able to answer your own question.

Peace!!!

 

[Raxus]

Simply replying without a lot of thought, I would suggest agreement with the Biblical account of Jesus birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection.

That just kicks the can down the road. Different people believe different Biblical accounts of all that.