Is the True Church inter-denominational?

[ThomasDoubter]

Hello all,

I have a friend who has a free view of worship, and has used Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican and even Quaker services in the past. The view is that the True Church is any Church that has Jesus as it’s foundation. I am always interested in a Catholic response to such a persuasive and non-confrontational argument! Here is a brief excerpt of a recent reply:-

*The church:

Yes Peter is the Rock, but Jesus is the foundation.

Peter therefore is the Rock that is laid on Jesus, but also anyone who has Jesus as his/her Rock and foundation belongs to the Church.

At the time of the reformation, the Catholic Church although succeeding from Peter, had lost its foundation in Jesus. You might know that there were systems of indulgences and other practices that were not part of the Christian faith.

When the printing press and translations of the bible started to become widespread, I believe it was a call of the Holy Spirit to find that true foundation once more. It was not the move of the Holy Spirit to divide the Church but to bring back Jesus.

Men divided the Church.

And every time, the Holy Spirit has called people to the true foundation, it has divided them because they can’t reconcile it (Think of Jesus saying he raise sons of Abraham from these stones).

Maybe the gates of hell think they are prevailing against us when the Church divides, but the Church never falls and crumbles, and in times and places of persecution, actually grows…the blood is an intercession!)

So I believe that God loves the Church, and always has, but that he has power to call people powerfully to a further Holiness, and revelation of himself.*

Any thoughts?

 

[Oumashta]

Hello all,

I have a friend who has a free view of worship, and has used Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican and even Quaker services in the past. The view is that the True Church is any Church that has Jesus as it’s foundation. I am always interested in a Catholic response to such a persuasive and non-confrontational argument! Here is a brief excerpt of a recent reply:-

*The church:

Yes Peter is the Rock, but Jesus is the foundation.

Peter therefore is the Rock that is laid on Jesus, but also anyone who has Jesus as his/her Rock and foundation belongs to the Church.

At the time of the reformation, the Catholic Church although succeeding from Peter, had lost its foundation in Jesus. You might know that there were systems of indulgences and other practices that were not part of the Christian faith.

When the printing press and translations of the bible started to become widespread, I believe it was a call of the Holy Spirit to find that true foundation once more. It was not the move of the Holy Spirit to divide the Church but to bring back Jesus.

Men divided the Church.

And every time, the Holy Spirit has called people to the true foundation, it has divided them because they can’t reconcile it (Think of Jesus saying he raise sons of Abraham from these stones).

Maybe the gates of hell think they are prevailing against us when the Church divides, but the Church never falls and crumbles, and in times and places of persecution, actually grows…the blood is an intercession!)

So I believe that God loves the Church, and always has, but that he has power to call people powerfully to a further Holiness, and revelation of himself.*

Any thoughts?

I’ve never studied theology, but I don’t think your friend is exactly correct. Jesus would not allow the Church to lead thousands of people into false practices for 1,500 years until the Reformation. Jesus is the Foundation, but He chose Peter to be the Rock. Indulgences were abused, but they are far from being wrong. Yes, God loves all Christians, Protestant or Catholic, but what we both believe is very different. Truth is truth, and it cannot be changed or altered. A church (or faith community) cannot be The True Church (founded by Jesus) if it teaches error. With all do respect to protestants, what they believe is far from what is taught in the Scriptures and the beliefs of the Early Church.

I’m sorry if I’m not clear. Hopefully someone else with more knowledge in this area will explain it better.

 

[Spencerian]

Hello all,

I have a friend who has a free view of worship, and has used Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican and even Quaker services in the past. The view is that the True Church is any Church that has Jesus as it’s foundation. I am always interested in a Catholic response to such a persuasive and non-confrontational argument! Here is a brief excerpt of a recent reply:-

*The church:

Yes Peter is the Rock, but Jesus is the foundation.

Peter therefore is the Rock that is laid on Jesus, but also anyone who has Jesus as his/her Rock and foundation belongs to the Church.

At the time of the reformation, the Catholic Church although succeeding from Peter, had lost its foundation in Jesus. You might know that there were systems of indulgences and other practices that were not part of the Christian faith.

When the printing press and translations of the bible started to become widespread, I believe it was a call of the Holy Spirit to find that true foundation once more. It was not the move of the Holy Spirit to divide the Church but to bring back Jesus.

Men divided the Church.

And every time, the Holy Spirit has called people to the true foundation, it has divided them because they can’t reconcile it (Think of Jesus saying he raise sons of Abraham from these stones).

Maybe the gates of hell think they are prevailing against us when the Church divides, but the Church never falls and crumbles, and in times and places of persecution, actually grows…the blood is an intercession!)

So I believe that God loves the Church, and always has, but that he has power to call people powerfully to a further Holiness, and revelation of himself.*

Any thoughts?

Hi.

Point her to two verses in Scripture that wholly contradict her interpretation, which adds more to the meaning than is there.

**Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” **This means that Christ did not come to remove the formal, ministerial priesthood or a needed ritual sacrifice to God (as was done for the first Covenant) but to perfect it through twelve men, handpicked by Christ Himself as new priests that answer to His teachings, as well as a new Lamb, one that can truly remove sin from the world–Christ Himself.

Peter alone is mentioned some 155 times in Scripture. The other Apostles, combined, are only mentioned 130 times. Why is Peter mentioned so often?

Also, Matthew 16:17, the following verse after Christ states Peter’s special role in his new group of priests, He states, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “I” there is to Peter alone–nowhere does Christ imply or clarify that it means that others (other Apostles, disciples or followers then or now) receive these keys. This is because Christ is referring to Jewish scripture. Isaiah 22:20-22. where God shows a prime minister in the House of David, given keys that give him power and authority from the Lord to conduct the Lord’s business–the keys of the kingdom. Peter (or any pope after him) is appointed a leader by his own authority, but God’s. It’s shown clearly in both verses that Peter leads–not as king, but as a “chairman” in a group of equals who has final decision making should conflicts occur. This is seen spoken of by Christ or done by Peter throughout Scripture, most notably in the book of Acts.

That doesn’t mean that we as followers cannot behave in pious manners as priests do. But we all have a role to play and it is inappropriate for Christians to play roles in Christ’s ministry that we have neither been tasked or given authority to perform. I am a male but I cannot be a priest now for various reasons. Women cannot be priests because Christ did not choose women in his Twelve. I can perform baptisms in a crisis but it is appropriate for the ordained to do so in ordinary circumstances. We as followers are part of the universal priesthood of Christ. The Apostles and their successors in the ordained clergy are the ministerial priesthood authorized to present the One Sacrifice of our Lord, the High Priest, Christ.

I’d reemphasize Matthew 5:17. If Christ said he was not abolishing a formal priesthood, then the Apostles and the ones they appoint must be the successors. If your friend disagrees, ask where does it say that anyone can do what Peter does and show specific examples of the same authority that Peter assumes in speaking for all others in groups and in public.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

The True Church has a hierarchy for figuring out differences and what is part of the Faith and what isn’t.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Hello all,

I have a friend who has a free view of worship, and has used Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican and even Quaker services in the past. The view is that the True Church is any Church that has Jesus as it’s foundation. I am always interested in a Catholic response to such a persuasive and non-confrontational argument! Here is a brief excerpt of a recent reply:-

*The church:

Yes Peter is the Rock, but Jesus is the foundation.

Peter therefore is the Rock that is laid on Jesus, but also anyone who has Jesus as his/her Rock and foundation belongs to the Church.

At the time of the reformation, the Catholic Church although succeeding from Peter, had lost its foundation in Jesus. You might know that there were systems of indulgences and other practices that were not part of the Christian faith.

When the printing press and translations of the bible started to become widespread, I believe it was a call of the Holy Spirit to find that true foundation once more. It was not the move of the Holy Spirit to divide the Church but to bring back Jesus.

Men divided the Church.

And every time, the Holy Spirit has called people to the true foundation, it has divided them because they can’t reconcile it (Think of Jesus saying he raise sons of Abraham from these stones).

Maybe the gates of hell think they are prevailing against us when the Church divides, but the Church never falls and crumbles, and in times and places of persecution, actually grows…the blood is an intercession!)

So I believe that God loves the Church, and always has, but that he has power to call people powerfully to a further Holiness, and revelation of himself.*

Any thoughts?

Here’s a couple of things to consider:

1. Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus authorize anyone to found a “denomination.” The word “denomination” means, literally, “from the name of,” meaning, it comes from something else. As such, the Catholic Church is not a denomination because it comes from the original Church founded by Christ.
2. Every denomination preaches a slightly different gospel than the Catholic Church. If they preached the same exactly gospel (and followed it), they’d be Catholic and never have splintered off.
3. Consider Gal. 1:8, which says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed.”
4. The Catholic Church has seven Sacraments. Protestants have two. Why? Because they don’t have Apostolic Succession. And because they don’t have Apostolic Succession, they don’t have a valid priesthood. No priesthood, you lose five Sacraments which require a valid priesthood to confect.
5. So, if someone leaves the Catholic Church, aside from being accursed for preaching a different gospel (see 3 above), where are they going to get Sanctifying Grace? They have no Eucharist. They have no valid Confession.

 

[ThomasDoubter]

Thanks to everyone for the replies - they have been a great help as usual!

I’m reading a couple of Scott Hahn books at the moment, but to be honest, my knowledge of my faith is sparse right now!

 

[Publisher]

The “True Church” of God is “trans-denominatinal”…a denomination is an earthly organization one belongs to…entrance into the Church is through the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Califman831]

Here’s a couple of things to consider:

1. Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus authorize anyone to found a “denomination.” The word “denomination” means, literally, “from the name of,” meaning, it comes from something else. As such, the Catholic Church is not a denomination because it comes from the original Church founded by Christ.

Correction it is the Church founded by Christ.

 

[josephback]

1. The Catholic Church has seven Sacraments. Protestants have two. Why? Because they don’t have Apostolic Succession. And because they don’t have Apostolic Succession, they don’t have a valid priesthood. No priesthood, you lose five Sacraments which require a valid priesthood to confect.

I didn’t know that was the reason for the difference. Huh.

 

[Evan]

*The church:

Yes Peter is the Rock, but Jesus is the foundation.
*

Ephesians 20: 19-20

So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.

Maybe the Rock is the servant of the servants of God (one of the Popes titles) and Jesus is the head of the Church. All of us are between the two. Jesus showed Peter how to server and then rose to take his seat at the right hand of the father.

 

[josephback]

The church:

Yes Peter is the Rock, but Jesus is the foundation.

Peter therefore is the Rock that is laid on Jesus, but also anyone who has Jesus as his/her Rock and foundation belongs to the Church.

The Church Father Origen agrees with the latter statement in his commentary on Matthew.

At the time of the reformation, the Catholic Church although succeeding from Peter, had lost its foundation in Jesus. You might know that there were systems of indulgences and other practices that were not part of the Christian faith.

If this is true, then Jesus lied, for He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. If the Church ever had to be refounded or the Gospel restored then we’re all doomed - because there would be no way to tell who restored the “true gospel”. Charles Russell(JW’s founder) and Joseph Smith(founder of Mormonism) would have just as much right as Martin Luther to that claim - or me or you! Personally I don’t think Jesus lied. The institution of the Church gives me great comfort that truth is not relative, that it can be found and relied upon. Go outside it, and it’s anyone’s game.

When the printing press and translations of the bible started to become widespread, I believe it was a call of the Holy Spirit to find that true foundation once more. It was not the move of the Holy Spirit to divide the Church but to bring back Jesus.

This is related to the assertion above. But the Church never lost it’s foundation. Jesus is the ultimate foundation. Some of the bishops and others in authority were corrupt, but the teachings were and are safe. God can use even men personally opposed to Him, like He did the High Priest Ciaphas(Ciaphas prophesied the necessity of the death of Jesus, read John). If the “true teachings” were lost and had to be restored by Luther/Calvin, then like I said we’re all doomed.

The Bible was translated and disseminated soemwhat before then, but what the printing press really did was make it harder for the Church to stamp out heresies. That and the desire of princes to have autonomy from the Church encouraged the spread and acceptance of non-Catholic ideas. Lastly, the people wanted to hear something different, and so Luther’s ideas found a ready audience.

Men divided the Church.

Men broke away from the Church. Slight difference.

And every time, the Holy Spirit has called people to the true foundation, it has divided them because they can’t reconcile it (Think of Jesus saying he raise sons of Abraham from these stones).

The truth divides and sometimes turns people off. But the Protestant Revolution didn’t call people back to the foundation. It saw them break away from the one Church.

Maybe the gates of hell think they are prevailing against us when the Church divides, but the Church never falls and crumbles, and in times and places of persecution, actually grows…the blood is an intercession!)

St. John Chrysostom would essentially agree with this statement.

So I believe that God loves the Church, and always has, but that he has power to call people powerfully to a further Holiness, and revelation of himself.

Any thoughts?

God loves the Church and calls us to a higher holiness, but not through division. He did not found or will a divided Church. I realize this all might sound triumphalistic, but the reality is that the True Church is not only not a denomination, it CANNOT be a denomination. The True Church is not made up of denominations, but is visibly one and undivided. The New Testament only testifies to ONE, UNITED Church. Always has been, always will be. Men may break off and away, but it is to their and their followers loss. The True Church is most emphatically NOT inter-denominational. It’s impossible!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

*The church:

Yes Peter is the Rock, but Jesus is the foundation.*Jesus is the head of the Church. I’m not sure what your friend is proving or disproving with this statement? It sounds punchy, but there’s not a lot of substance to it.

ThomasDoubter:

Peter therefore is the Rock that is laid on Jesus, but also anyone who has Jesus as his/her Rock and foundation belongs to the Church.

Well, again, I’m not sure that this language proves much of anything. I would agree that Christ founded one Church, and that anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism is received into that Church, whether or not they are perfectly or imperfectly joined.

ThomasDoubter:

At the time of the reformation, the Catholic Church although succeeding from Peter, had lost its foundation in Jesus.

How so? I think your friend is making a huge assertion that requires some form of evidence. Since it it his assertion, hold him to the burden of proof. Ask him to show you why he has concluded that the Catholic Church strayed from the truth of Jesus Christ.

ThomasDoubter:

You might know that there were systems of indulgences and other practices that were not part of the Christian faith.

They most certainly were, and continue to be today. While some within the Church abused indulgences, or misunderstood them, the practice certainly was biblical and part of the Christian faith known throughout Christendom in the east and west. If your friend makes blanket assertions like this, you should again hold him to his burden of proof. He cannot substantiate this claim.

ThomasDoubter:

When the printing press and translations of the bible started to become widespread, I believe it was a call of the Holy Spirit to find that true foundation once more. It was not the move of the Holy Spirit to divide the Church but to bring back Jesus.

Your friend has not established that Jesus left the Catholic Church. I certainly agree that the Reformation was not the move of the Holy Spirit. It was a different spirit that divided the visible Church in Europe.

ThomasDoubter:

Men divided the Church.

Agreed. Luther in particular.

ThomasDoubter:

And every time, the Holy Spirit has called people to the true foundation, it has divided them because they can’t reconcile it (Think of Jesus saying he raise sons of Abraham from these stones).

This seems to disprove the point your friend is trying to make. What he is saying is that men who cannot reconcile the truth with their own beliefs cause ruptures within the Church. If this is so, then there is absolute truth, and not a relative truth in which all church communities that recognize Jesus are equally valid. It cannot be so. One must be the closest to what is true, while the rest stand either closer or further from that truth.

ThomasDoubter:

Maybe the gates of hell think they are prevailing against us when the Church divides, but the Church never falls and crumbles, and in times and places of persecution, actually grows…the blood is an intercession!)

I think this comment confuses individual responses with Church authority. Christians from all different communities suffer persecution and martyrdom. Such faith does not establish doctrinal validity. A muslim and a christian can each die for their faith. The actions do not make both belief systems equally true. The gates of hell would prevail over the true Church if it could be made to teach error as truth. That has not happened, although individual members, and even whole denominations have fallen away because of their errant beliefs and interpretations.

ThomasDoubter:

So I believe that God loves the Church, and always has, but that he has power to call people powerfully to a further Holiness, and revelation of himself.

I agree that God is not restricted in any way, and can call those from all faith traditions to holiness. That does not establish an interdenominational “invisible” church of all believers as the True Church, nor does it establish that only those doctrines we share are correct.

ThomasDoubter:

Any thoughts?

Not sure your friend has much of an argument here. It’s a series of “feel good” statements but not a cogent argument for an interdenominational “True Church.”

Peace,
Robert

 

[Willy_Jose]

God works in many ways, and it is good to understand that Christ’s mystical body has
both visible and invisible boundaries. God’s graces also work outside the visible boundaries of the one true Church, and Catholics do not claim the monopoly of truth. Rather we assert that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth. We embrace ecumenism. The Decree on Ecumenism states :

*"…It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church…The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded…"
*
Yet we must bear in mind that we desire unity for God desires it. On this note, Pope Benedict XVI has this to say:

“We must guard against any temptation to view doctrine as divisive and hence an impediment to the seemingly more pressing and immediate task of improving the world in which we live.”

…and…

"The road of ecumenism ultimately points towards a common celebration of the Eucharist".

 

[DElias]

If this is true, then Jesus lied, for He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. If the Church ever had to be refounded or the Gospel restored then we’re all doomed - because there would be no way to tell who restored the “true gospel”. Charles Russell(JW’s founder) and Joseph Smith(founder of Mormonism) would have just as much right as Martin Luther to that claim - or me or you! Personally I don’t think Jesus lied. The institution of the Church gives me great comfort that truth is not relative, that it can be found and relied upon. Go outside it, and it’s anyone’s game.

Not to be too pick, but I believe that Jesus said “the gates of Hell will not overcome it”. In the scenario in which that would happen, there would be no Christianity today. There have been examples of issues within Christian leadership for many years leading to today. It doesn’t mean that Satan has overcome it.

That being said, I am an ardent believer that the Church really does belong to the body of believers in Christ. Remember that Acts 16:31 simply states, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” Remember as well the criminal who was saved on the cross by his simple faith and confession in Christ. I think that this common belief is what binds all Christians together as the Church. I have spoken to a number of priests who completely agree with this as well.

In the end, I think that the sect of Christianity a person chooses most often reflects how they choose to try to understand God on their journey. Obviously, most on here chose Catholicism with the idea that apostolic tradition will guide them best. I am not presenting a case on this one way or the other, rather that we are all essentially one body in Christ.

 

[cargau]

Not to be too pick, but I believe that Jesus said “the gates of Hell will not overcome it”. In the scenario in which that would happen, there would be no Christianity today. There have been examples of issues within Christian leadership for many years leading to today. It doesn’t mean that Satan has overcome it.

That being said, I am an ardent believer that the Church really does belong to the body of believers in Christ. Remember that Acts 16:31 simply states, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” Remember as well the criminal who was saved on the cross by his simple faith and confession in Christ. I think that this common belief is what binds all Christians together as the Church. I have spoken to a number of priests who completely agree with this as well.

In the end, I think that the sect of Christianity a person chooses most often reflects how they choose to try to understand God on their journey. Obviously, most on here chose Catholicism with the idea that apostolic tradition will guide them best. I am not presenting a case on this one way or the other, rather that we are all essentially one body in Christ.

This, I believe is well said.

While the Church, founded by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit is the fullness of truth, there is no reason why we cannot and should not have the utmost respect, love and concern for those Christians who are not of the Catholic Tradition.

Protestants are on a journey to find the Truth, the Gospel, just like we are. Our human senses sometimes dulls our perception of reality and prevent us from fully embracing the truth. So, our imperfect search may lead us down a different path.

Is not the Holy Spirit alive and guiding Protestants? Using terms like heresy, for example, drives a wedge between us. In John 19, Jesus prayed that we all be one. How can we ever be one if we can’t meet and try to understand one another? And, what exactly does “oneness” look like?

I am not chastising anyone because I believe you are all fundamentally correct. Rather, I am asking folks (me included) to step back for a moment and consider another approach. Is it possible, that Protestant understandings may enlighten our own understanding? Could it be that the Spirit has been working on the Catholic Church since the reformation, using Protestantism to reform and correct Catholicism?

I am not a Protestant apologist. I am just saying the a good Catholic and a good Protestant both love Christ and want to live virtuous lives. Perhaps, that is a starting point.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

This, I believe is well said.

While the Church, founded by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit is the fullness of truth, there is no reason why we cannot and should not have the utmost respect, love and concern for those Christians who are not of the Catholic Tradition.

I concur.

cargau:

Protestants are on a journey to find the Truth, the Gospel, just like we are. Our human senses sometimes dulls our perception of reality and prevent us from fully embracing the truth. So, our imperfect search may lead us down a different path.

I also agree here.

cargau:

Is not the Holy Spirit alive and guiding Protestants? Using terms like heresy, for example, drives a wedge between us. In John 19, Jesus prayed that we all be one. How can we ever be one if we can’t meet and try to understand one another? And, what exactly does “oneness” look like?

I certainly agree that the Holy Spirit can and does guide Protestant Christians. I also believe that Christ meant what he said when he prayed that we all be one. I’m not sure how it will happen when we have “good faith” disagreements on matters of doctrine. But I trust in God, that He will guide us to a proper resolution. The term “heretic” usually ads nothing to a charitable discussion. On occasion the term is appropriate, even in polite discussion. But I can’t think of a situation in which it should be used as an accusation.

cargau:

I am not chastising anyone because I believe you are all fundamentally correct. Rather, I am asking folks (me included) to step back for a moment and consider another approach. Is it possible, that Protestant understandings may enlighten our own understanding? Could it be that the Spirit has been working on the Catholic Church since the reformation, using Protestantism to reform and correct Catholicism?

I have disclosed previously that it was a Jack Chick tract that made me a better Catholic. So, I suppose I owe something to the most vehemently anti-Catholic of protestants and in some way I feel God used something vile for a positive end in my small individual circumstance. I also would agree that charitable protestant arguments can also challenge me to look at my faith in new ways. Always, I feel strengthened in my faith when I discuss a matter with another person who is seeking truth. “Come now. Let us reason together, says the Lord.” (Isa 1:18) And I believe in those charitiable discussions, when we come together to reason, Christ is present and guiding each of us. " For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Mt. 18:20)

cargau:

I am not a Protestant apologist. I am just saying the a good Catholic and a good Protestant both love Christ and want to live virtuous lives. Perhaps, that is a starting point.

I agree. It is a very good starting point.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SteveVH]

Hello all,

I have a friend who has a free view of worship, and has used Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican and even Quaker services in the past. The view is that the True Church is any Church that has Jesus as it’s foundation. I am always interested in a Catholic response to such a persuasive and non-confrontational argument! Here is a brief excerpt of a recent reply:-

I don’t find that comment persuasive at all. Does it matter what one believes about Jesus? Some believe He was only a man. Some believe He is a God unto Himself? Anyone can claim Jesus as their foundation, but what do they really believe about him?

The church:

Yes Peter is the Rock, but Jesus is the foundation.

Peter therefore is the Rock that is laid on Jesus, but also anyone who has Jesus as his/her Rock and foundation belongs to the Church.

Sorry, Jesus chose Peter as the rock upon which He would build His Church. He didn’t choose me, or you, or your friend. We enter the Church through baptism “as through a door”.

At the time of the reformation, the Catholic Church although succeeding from Peter, had lost its foundation in Jesus. You might know that there were systems of indulgences and other practices that were not part of the Christian faith.

Who says that the Catholic Church lost its foundation in Jesus? This is completely false. The Church’s doctrines have never changed and Jesus Christ is and always has been the center and focus of worship. There have been some bad characters in its history, but they were not following the teachings of the Church; they were abusing them. Your friend is ignorant of the legitimacy of indulgences. Again, they were being abused for the personal gain of some bishops and priests, but they are not evil in themselves.

When the printing press and translations of the bible started to become widespread, I believe it was a call of the Holy Spirit to find that true foundation once more. It was not the move of the Holy Spirit to divide the Church but to bring back Jesus.

Again, this statement is based upon a false premise that the Catholic Church has lost its foundation in Christ.

Men divided the Church.

Finally, something with which I can agree. And many followed those men. They are called Protestants.

And every time, the Holy Spirit has called people to the true foundation, it has divided them because they can’t reconcile it (Think of Jesus saying he raise sons of Abraham from these stones).

Maybe the gates of hell think they are prevailing against us when the Church divides, but the Church never falls and crumbles, and in times and places of persecution, actually grows…the blood is an intercession!)

The gates of hell are defensive by nature (they guard hell) and don’t prevail against anyone. The Church will crush the gates of hell and that is why they will not prevail.

So I believe that God loves the Church, and always has, but that he has power to call people powerfully to a further Holiness, and revelation of himself.

So dividing into 30,000 - 50,000 denominations is evidence of holiness? I don’t think so.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Correction it is the Church founded by Christ.

That is exactly correct. Thanks! I meant to say it that way.

 

[hn160]

The marks of a true church is where the Word is taught and preach in it’s purity and the Sacraments rightly administrated and it’s doctrine is the teaching about Jesus. The confessional Lutheran church will not hold joint services with other denominations because it would imply agreement in doctrine.

 

[Roy5]

Interdenominational? I’m not sure about that. But over the years I have moved more and more toward a less dogmatic and more ‘big tent’ view of Christianity.

Let me sum it up briefly. In reading the Church Fathers and even the original creeds I cannot help but feel that they are ancient and medieval in their content and context. For example, the Church Fathers, while brilliant for their time, has a very warped concept of the universe. Why? They had poor telescopes, thought the world was flat, had no microscopes, assumed there was a heaven somewhere up in the sky and a hell in the bowels of the earth, etc. That was fine in their day, perhaps, but certainly seems primitive in our own. What troubles me is that so much emphasis is placed upon tradition, ideas that had their time and place but are irrelevant today.

**Even the creeds**, e. g., Jesus sitting on the right hand of God. I suspect that most Christians 1000 and 2000 years ago could actgually visualize that and believe that. They lived in a time when kings were everywhere, sitting on their thrones. And, of course, right was preferred to left, a prejudice that still hangs on to some degree, though we are less likely to coerce left-handed children to change like we did for generations.

** In a nutshell, none of us have the minds capable of penetrating the mysteries of this mammoth, magnificent, miraculous and mysterious universe.** I don’t really knows what’s going on in the house across the street, so how can I pretend to know what’s happening beyond the billions of stars billions of light years away!? So, we need to be humble in our theology, not pretending to know more than we can know. We need to be tolerant of diverse viewpoints. We need to avoid being chained to ancient and medieval concepts that no longer are acceptable to the modern mind. Traditional Christianity, both Catholic and non-Catholic, is going to lose out in the long run if it insists that the faithful believe the unbelievable.

** For those who believe that God will always preserve the true church, relax**. If you are right, worry not at all. But many of us who generally avoid zealous denominationalism, who try to stay clear of sectarian tribalism, are not so sure. Millions have cooled to Christianity because so many Christians - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - are dogmatic when we need to be open-minded, less judgmental, and more willing to ‘agree to disagree’. Someday we will know the truth, and my own guess is that it will be far removed from the theology of any of us. God’s ways are not our ways, nor are God’s thoughts our thoughts.

**As for me personally, fine. I don't fret, either**, because I enjoy thinking for myself without worrying about any 'heresies'. After all, in Matt. 25 (verses 31ff)  Jesus said that people would be judged not by their doctrines but by how they sought to serve others. That's something I can understand. As for the ultimate mysteries of life, I'm content to walk by faith and not by sight, to depend on that faith and not on knowledge.

** God bless everytbody**, of every color, creed, culture or country. That’s what I believe is the true spirit of Christ.