On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

[benhur]

Isn’t that part of becoming Christian… We are only part of the body. We assent to matters the Church Judges.

Hi rc,

Actually, I thought another thread dealing with Huss and reuniting, that the CC indeed honors freedom of conscience and following spiritual convictions, even in the face of opposition. The thread almost honored Luther and Huss’s stand on “personal convictions/conscience”…I think you were on thread also.

Blessings

PS not suggesting accepting heresy, but in hindsight, Huss was not that relatively heretical.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Actually, I thought another thread dealing with Huss and reuniting, that the CC indeed honors freedom of conscience and following spiritual convictions, even in the face of opposition. The thread almost honored Luther and Huss’s stand on “personal convictions/conscience”…I think you were on thread also.

Blessings

PS not suggesting accepting heresy, but in hindsight, Huss was not that relatively heretical.

What constitutes a heretical position? Who determines this?

 

[rcwitness]

Hi S/N,

On second reading, especially first sentence, he does state the CC position correctly I think, according to Lumen Gentia. P’s and O’s somehow add to the unity of the CC, as “brethren” , with the gospel of grace and salvation, though imperfectly joined, holding on to the old “salvation is of the Roman Catholic Church”. God honors these “others” , for the sake of the One, True Catholic Church, stemming from her.

I simply see it as a very unique way to authenticate, validate ones heirachy and doctrine relative to other Christian views/churches.

But thank you for being sensitive to how others view such postings.

Blessings

That’s a keen and generous observation of Abu’s post.

 

[Abu]

susanlo #49
In Acts 1 5:39 Paul and Barnabas have a “sharp disagreement” and part company. They are still brothers in Christ even if they don’t agree and choose to go their separate ways.

That “sharp disagreement” is only about “John surnamed Mark” who had deserted them in Pamphylia so that has nothing to do with Christ’s explicit teaching in His Catholic Church.

benhur #58
On second reading, especially first sentence, he does state the CC position correctly I think,…… I simply see it as a very unique way to authenticate, validate ones heirachy and doctrine relative to other Christian views/churches.

Thank you, Ben Hur. As Jesus said: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” [John 8:32].

 

[rcwitness]

To be Roman Catholic I would have to accept teachings that I disagree with.

I’d like to highlight this again. And I can appreciate the struggle and perhaps dilemma. The purpose of CA is to dialogue about these disagreements and concerns. Cats and Non-Catholic Christians must always struggle to be charitable and productive in this fellowship.

I wonder… is it truly better to condone opposing views on matters of faith and morals without exercising a resolution, or coming together to discern and profess a decisive conclusion to accept one way and reject the other?

In the end, the denominations continue to divide and members hop around when they realize they disagree with a stance or practice anyway. Though I don’t imply all do this.

And remember, mere membership of the Catholic Church does not necessarily equate to a “wise and faithful” Catholic!

 

[fbl9]

I would say off the top of my head that a Christian is somebody who believes in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A Christian believes salvation is through Jesus Christ who was born, died and resurrected. They follow the Ten Commandments and the commandments to love God and love your neighbor from Matthew 22. I think these are the essentials that I can think of.

I don’t think it is necessary to be in agreement on everything. My disagreeing with my biological brother doesn’t mean that he is not still the son of my parents. We don’t have to agree on everything to be brother and sister.

In Acts 15:39 Paul and Barnabas have a “sharp disagreement” and part company. They are still brothers in Christ even if they don’t agree and choose to go their separate ways.

Let`s say that their disagreement was over circumcision, Now would the one, saying that it was necessary, still be a brother in Christ.
The disagreement had nothing to do with what they taught.
One. What is one? One has nothing more and nothing less than One.

 

[Abu]

So what does Jesus regard as “essentials”?

Certainly the Ten Commandments are from the time of Moses from God on Mount Sinai and Jesus often teaches that their observance is essential.

Loving thy neighbour as thyself is another reality in His teaching.

So why then did He establish His Catholic Church? And why did He equip Her emphatically with those FIVE ESSENTIAL TRUTHS on which He Built His Church on St Peter?

Christ’s overwhelming purpose is explicitly explained to us as:
Jesus Prays for All Believers [Jn 17:20-26].
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— **23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
** [My bold].
24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you[a] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

How can this “complete unity” be achieved without following Christ’s expressed foundation of His Church on St Peter and his successors?

 

[XndrK]

IMHO, the more a church assists you to become a better Christian, the truer it is.

How do you decide what a “better Christian” is?

 

[Tomdstone]

How do you decide what a “better Christian” is?

IMHO, A good Christian would at least:

1. Follow the ten commandments and its implications.
2. Follow Matthew ch. 5,6,7.
3. Follow Matthew ch 22: v 37, 38,39.
4. follow Matthew ch 25: v 34-40.
5. Follow Ephesians 4:29.
6. Follow Colossians 3:8
   etc.

 

[Darryl_B]

IMHO, A good Christian would at least:

1. Follow the ten commandments and its implications.
2. Follow Matthew ch. 5,6,7.
3. Follow Matthew ch 22: v 37, 38,39.
4. follow Matthew ch 25: v 34-40.
5. Follow Ephesians 4:29.
6. Follow Colossians 3:8
   etc.

Titus 3:1-3?

 

[susanlo]

I’d like to highlight this again. And I can appreciate the struggle and perhaps dilemma. The purpose of CA is to dialogue about these disagreements and concerns. Cats and Non-Catholic Christians must always struggle to be charitable and productive in this fellowship.

I wonder… is it truly better to condone opposing views on matters of faith and morals without exercising a resolution, or coming together to discern and profess a decisive conclusion to accept one way and reject the other?

In the end, the denominations continue to divide and members hop around when they realize they disagree with a stance or practice anyway. Though I don’t imply all do this.

And remember, mere membership of the Catholic Church does not necessarily equate to a “wise and faithful” Catholic!

I am curious how you would define a Christian. What are the essential requirements that distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian? Are there some beliefs that Christians can differ on, but still be Christians?

 

[susanlo]

Let`s say that their disagreement was over circumcision, Now would the one, saying that it was necessary, still be a brother in Christ.
The disagreement had nothing to do with what they taught.
One. What is one? One has nothing more and nothing less than One.

I am not sure I understand exactly what you are asking.

 

[rcwitness]

I am curious how you would define a Christian. What are the essential requirements that distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian? Are there some beliefs that Christians can differ on, but still be Christians?

I believe a Christian is a validly Baptized person who believes/accepts/keeps/loves the Gospel of Jesus.

A non-Christian does not believe/accept/keep/love the Gospel.

Yes, I’m sure there are many beliefs/interpretations which are open to believers.

The Gospel is the essential foundation (and you summed it up well in a post a while back). From the point of accepting the Gospel, one is encountered with conversion and action each day. To learn and grow, and to do the will of the Father.

 

[josephback]

My religion isn’t listed but I was mostly explaining what I grew up in. To one immersed in the denominational model, the question doesn’t occur. I’ve uploaded a visible illustration of things, but it may be getting moderated as it doesn’t show. Hopefully it shows eventually.

I didn’t pay enough attention to insert the picture, but found the problem. It’s now in the signature. The top left is Orthodoxy, the top right is Catholicism, and the bottom is labeled “the denominational model,” mostly because it’s hard to pin down specifics that differ group to group. The denominational model in general lacks a sense of hierarchical government, at least in the sacramentally ordained sense. I don’t know how to make the image bigger.

 

[Kliska]

The Apostles themselves mistook an earthly-styled hierarchy and group formation for the idea of the ekklesia, to the point of trying to stop someone doing right and proper in the name of Jesus simply because the person didn’t follow them. The whole point of the ekklesia is a gathering of people with Christ as the head, and the Holy Spirit as the guide, united in love for God and love for each other. Jesus said people would hear His voice, and if they were His sheep they’d recognize His voice and follow it. How was the world to know who His disciples were? By their love for one another.

In conversations on “the church” we almost have to avoid using the English “church” and instead go back to ekklesia, or Congregation, Gathering, Meeting, etc… It doesn’t make much sense arguing which congregation is the true congregation because there are many congregations preaching and practicing the Truth, because they preach the Truth of Jesus Christ, and follow His voice. As we can see in the book of Revelation, there are various congregations in various places who have their individual issues/problems, or their individual good works depending on the congregation.

 

[rcwitness]

Hebrews 5, 6:

Warning against Falling Away

11*About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.12For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food;13for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child.14But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

6*Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,2with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.3And this we will do if God permits.

 

[josephback]

The Apostles themselves mistook an earthly-styled hierarchy and group formation for the idea of the ekklesia, to the point of trying to stop someone doing right and proper in the name of Jesus simply because the person didn’t follow them. The whole point of the ekklesia is a gathering of people with Christ as the head, and the Holy Spirit as the guide, united in love for God and love for each other. Jesus said people would hear His voice, and if they were His sheep they’d recognize His voice and follow it. How was the world to know who His disciples were? By their love for one another.

In conversations on “the church” we almost have to avoid using the English “church” and instead go back to ekklesia, or Congregation, Gathering, Meeting, etc… It doesn’t make much sense arguing which congregation is the true congregation because there are many congregations preaching and practicing the Truth, because they preach the Truth of Jesus Christ, and follow His voice. As we can see in the book of Revelation, there are various congregations in various places who have their individual issues/problems, or their individual good works depending on the congregation.

What becomes of the visible, material and enduring aspect of the Church without a hierarchy of some sort? More importantly, how is the “faith delivered once for all unto the saints” to be protected from corruption, error, misinterpretation, et cetera so as to endure to the end of time?

 

[rcwitness]

The Apostles themselves mistook an earthly-styled hierarchy and group formation for the idea of the ekklesia, to the point of trying to stop someone doing right and proper in the name of Jesus simply because the person didn’t follow them. The whole point of the ekklesia is a gathering of people with Christ as the head, and the Holy Spirit as the guide, united in love for God and love for each other. Jesus said people would hear His voice, and if they were His sheep they’d recognize His voice and follow it. How was the world to know who His disciples were? By their love for one another.

In conversations on “the church” we almost have to avoid using the English “church” and instead go back to ekklesia, or Congregation, Gathering, Meeting, etc… It doesn’t make much sense arguing which congregation is the true congregation because there are many congregations preaching and practicing the Truth, because they preach the Truth of Jesus Christ, and follow His voice. As we can see in the book of Revelation, there are various congregations in various places who have their individual issues/problems, or their individual good works depending on the congregation.

Are you teaching us there is no rank of leadership in the House of God?

I believe this is un-Biblical.

And still, it does not need to contradict the good faith in your post.

3 John 1

I have written something to the church; but Diot′rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.10*So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words. And not content with that, he refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church.

Hebrews 13

Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

 

[Wannano]

The Apostles themselves mistook an earthly-styled hierarchy and group formation for the idea of the ekklesia, to the point of trying to stop someone doing right and proper in the name of Jesus simply because the person didn’t follow them. The whole point of the ekklesia is a gathering of people with Christ as the head, and the Holy Spirit as the guide, united in love for God and love for each other. Jesus said people would hear His voice, and if they were His sheep they’d recognize His voice and follow it. How was the world to know who His disciples were? By their love for one another.

In conversations on “the church” we almost have to avoid using the English “church” and instead go back to ekklesia, or Congregation, Gathering, Meeting, etc… It doesn’t make much sense arguing which congregation is the true congregation because there are many congregations preaching and practicing the Truth, because they preach the Truth of Jesus Christ, and follow His voice. As we can see in the book of Revelation, there are various congregations in various places who have their individual issues/problems, or their individual good works depending on the congregation.

I agree with your thought here in general however I am not sure that the Apostles themselves made the mistake rather that it came from those who directly survived them. Or do you have more information to substantiate that the Apostles themselves believed that Peter not Christ was the foundation for the church to built upon?

 

[rcwitness]

IOr do you have more information to substantiate that the Apostles themselves believed that Peter not Christ was the foundation for the church to built upon?

Peter was first ordained to the office of Christ’s steward. Jesus placed him over the whole household. Yet he is an equal because he is still only a member who is subject to the Chief Shepherd.