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

[susanlo]

Wannano, I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out to you, I haven’t really been following the thread.
“Pope” is simply Italian for “Papa” or “Father”. Calling a priest or a Bishop ‘father’ dates back to the early Church.
I’ve never been sure why people make a big deal about this. It was never an issue for me even when I was a Baptist.

I have often thought about this in relation to Matthew 23

"8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."

I don’t know if this means that we can’t ever use the word father (abba) to address our mother’s husband or some extreme understanding like that. I do think it does seem to be saying something about hierarchy. If Jesus meant in Matthew 16 for Simon Peter to be the first Pope/papa of the whole church above the other apostles, then why in Matthew 23 didn’t he say: “only call Peter and his successors ‘father’ - or ‘leader.’” The only role he assigned them was “brothers.”

 

[JustaServant]

Susan, this can answer it better than I can:
catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

Excerpt:

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Again, I never understood, even in my fundamentalist days why this is such a big deal. It’s actually the easiest of fundamentalist objections to refute.
I’m not saying you are fundamentalist, just that it often comes up in fundamentalist circles.
Hope that helps.

 

[susanlo]

Susan, this can answer it better than I can:
catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

Excerpt:

Again, I never understood, even in my fundamentalist days why this is such a big deal. It’s actually the easiest of fundamentalist objections to refute.
I’m not saying you are fundamentalist, just that it often comes up in fundamentalist circles.
Hope that helps.

The terms Rabbi and leaders are not prohibited - only father. I haven’t researched the original Greek of these words. However, I don’t know if my concern is that the term father is later used. But, I just think this is a place where Jesus clearly explained the hierarchy that was to be - “brothers.”

 

[rcwitness]

The terms Rabbi and leaders are not prohibited - only father. I haven’t researched the original Greek of these words. However, I don’t know if my concern is that the term father is later used. But, I just think this is a place where Jesus clearly explained the hierarchy that was to be - “brothers.”

Then why does Paul call himself a Father to Timothy and Tius… or Abraham a father to us all?

 

[PJM]

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.

Might I interject?

How does this reconcile with the FACT that the very same One- GOSPEL is the root cause of thousands of differing Protestant churches and sets of faith beliefs? Therefore HOW can it be the criteria of being a defined Christian?

God Bless you

Patrick.

 

[PJM]

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.

Thank you

For the sake of discussion, HOW does these reconcile to your sated understanding?

2nd Timothy 3:
[16] All scripture, {is} inspired of God, is {and is} profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work

Matthew 4: 4
“Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God”

IF I’m understanding your point; one can pretty much pick and choose at random what to believe ? This nullifying the 2 above teachings.

God Bless,

Patrick

.

 

[fbl9]

I don’t see why they wouldn’t be. I don’t think unintentional misunderstanding or disagreeing with each other would make God not accept one of them.

Thank you for your reply.
i would not consider some one that teaches something that the Holy Spirit and the Apostles have spoke against as a brother in Christ.

 

[rcwitness]

Might I interject?

How does this reconcile with the FACT that the very same One- GOSPEL is the root cause of thousands of differing Protestant churches and sets of faith beliefs? Therefore HOW can it be the criteria of being a defined Christian?

God Bless you

Patrick.

The Gospel is NOT the root cause of Protestant division. :tsktsk:

The choice to remove themselves from the leadership of the Bishop of Rome is the root cause of Protestant division. Men on both sides of the issues are guilty of leading to this cause in its beginning.

 

[PJM]

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

ONLY HIGHLY CONDITIONALLY TRUE

**FROM THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM

1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.** Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it**

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

So, it would seen a prudent question to ask:

For Protestants on CAF; do they, or do they NOT qualify based on the above, given the fact that CAF is precisely that “possibility?”

God will Judge us NOT on what we choose to knoew and believe, RATHER on WHAT He GOD has made possible for one to know and believe. Amen!

God Bless you,
Patrick

God Bless you.

 

[PJM]

What constitutes a heretical position? Who determines this?

1. GOD
2. GOD’s Church [who alone HOLDS all of the Key’s to heaven gate]. And NO I am NOT saying in an absolute sense that one MUST BE a Catholic to be saved. Please read the POST above this one.

Mt 10: 1-8
Mt 16:18-19
John 17: 17-20
Mt 28: 19-20

PAY very close attention in reading these to take NOTE of the singular tense: Mt 16:18 for example “MY Church” notably singular

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

we have no claims of exclusivity at all-we are members of the holy catholic apostolic Church-

we feel all denominations are working to spread God’s word

IMPOSSIBLE! Your faith beliefs and practices are FAR different than are the RCC

One cannot be a part of a church singular and HOLD to vastly different beliefs.

Were that possible, the reformation would NEVER have taken place. There would have been MANY opportunities for different sets of faith beliefs {Protestants = means to PROTEST!, long before Luther and Calvin Ect.

God Bless you,
Patrick .

 

[PJM]

I think non-Catholic Christians who do not believe the Church is able to divinely assert matters of faith and morals believe we are left to our conscience as supreme authority. And if you have different conclusions on matters, you are approved to receive a Communion from a leadership who has those same conclusions.

NO

This is true ONLY if and WHEN that conscience is FULLY and CORRECTLY FORMED.

**Catholic Catechism:

1783 **Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

This is WHY God in His Brilliance has always [no exceptions]

Chosen to teach and accepth nothing BUT:

One True God

One True set of Faith beliefs

{OT} One chosen people Exo. 6:7; {NT} “MY Church”" Mt 16:18 singular all

No where in recorded history or in the bible is there evidence of contradiction to the above statement that can be proven to be GOD-APPROVED.

God Bless you

Patrick.

 

[PJM]

This paragraph stood out to me this morning. First let me tell you that I attended Mass this past Sunday at a Ukrainian Catholic Church. The Church is beautifully adorned with painted angels on the ceiling, and the walls elaborately exude the portrayals of Christ , Mary and Saints. Numerous statues and figurines occupy space at the front. It is an attractive setting and gives one a sense of being in the presence of something mystical and majestic.

Now back to the first sentence of the post…“where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God…” Surely I am not reading this right am I? Do we worship the presence of God or do we worship God?

God and God’s Presence {the REAL Presence] are EXACTLY the identically same reality.

Secondly…“the Son of God our Savuoir, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful”…what does this mean? Help and consolation? I believe Jesus was the sacrifice forthe sins of the world.

And in doing so you accept the “recent” inventions of Luther’s reformation; NOT what Christ Himself desired, taught and dies for.

I know this comes as a SHOCK, but God could not have waited for some 1500 YEARS after He established His Church {“My Church”…Mt 16:18 singular] to make HIS faith -beliefs known.

Take for example these:

1John.1 Verses 8 to 10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

1John.5 Verses 16 to 17 "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

John.20 Verses 20 to 23"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”**

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

And this is but a single example of which I speak. There are many more.

God Bless you

Patrick

What is the last sentence saying…“should show Christ to be present” …do we not believe He is in reality?

 

[Kliska]

PJM, you seem to miss the point that we all believe there is only one Church. Again, the word Church in English can be misleading. Ekklesia = congregation, community, gathering, a meeting of the “out-called ones.” If one is “out-called” and follows The Shepherd’s call to faith in Him, and meet together, that is the Church.

Jesus walking through the streets of a city, He calls out for any and all to come walk with Him. Those that answer His call and follow Him are the Church.

 

[PJM]

That’s a fair statement. However where it always runs into trouble is what is that truth, and what needs to be defined as having a truth? Catholics use things like the Magesterium and Canon Law to define what has a defined truth and what that truth is from a Catholic POV. But clearly others such as myself who reject the Catholic Magesterium or Code of Canon Law have different opinions on what needs a defined truth, and what those truths are on the things that are defined.

And WHY do Catholic do this:shrug:

Mt 10: 1-5
And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave THEM power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. **And the names of the twelve apostles **are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. **These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying:[YOU} Go[/COLOR] ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.

Mt 16: 18-19
And I say to YOU: That thou art Peter; and upon {YOU-Peter} this rock I will build MY church, [Singular} and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to YOU {Peter} the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jn. 17: 17-20 [jesus praying to the Father / God cannot deny himself as Jesus too Is GOD

Sanctify THEM in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent THEM into the world. [19] And for THEM do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for THEM only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

Mt 28: 19-20
"Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

ALL singular tense, ALL directed to and exclusively TOO the Apostles and their successors.

HOW can the Bible, How can God have been more precise and specific?

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

The rock of Matthew 16:18 has been a subject of debate for a long time. Roman Catholics usually feel that the rock is Peter and his successors, while non-Catholics think the rock is Jesus, or the confession of faith in Jesus.

When I look at how rock was used as a metaphor in the OT it is always used to refer to God or Jesus:
Deuteronomy 32:4
“The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

Deuteronomy 32:15
“But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked— You are grown fat, thick, and sleek— Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation.

Deuteronomy 32:18
“You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth.

Deuteronomy 32:30-31
“How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the Lord had given them up? “Indeed their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies themselves judge this.

1 Samuel 2:2
“There is no one holy like the Lord, Indeed, there is no one besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:2
He said, “The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;

2 Samuel 22:3
My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence.

2 Samuel 22:32
“For who is God, besides the Lord? And who is a rock, besides our God?

2 Samuel 22:47
“The Lord lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be God, the** rock **of my salvation,

2 Samuel 23:3
“The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me, ‘He who rules over men righteously, Who rules in the fear of God,

Psalm 18:2
The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

Psalm 18:31
For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God,

Psalm 18:46
The Lord lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be the God of my salvation,

Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer.

Psalm 28:1
A Prayer for Help, and Praise for Its Answer. ] A Psalm of David. ] To You, O Lord, I call; My rock, do not be deaf to me, For if You are silent to me, I will become like those who go down to the pit.

Psalm 31:2
Incline Your ear to me, rescue me quickly; Be to me a rock of strength, A stronghold to save me.

Psalm 31:3
For You are my rock and my fortress; For Your name’s sake You will lead me and guide me.

Psalm 42:9
I will say to God my rock, “Why have You forgotten me? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?”

Psalm 61:2
From the end of the earth I call to You when my heart is faint; Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

Psalm 62:2
He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken.

Psalm 62:6-7
He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken. On God my salvation and my glory rest; The rock of my strength, my refuge is in God.

Psalm 71:3
Be to me a rock of habitation to which I may continually come; You have given commandment to save me, For You are my rock and my fortress.

Psalm 78:35
And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer.

Psalm 89:26
“He will cry to Me, ‘You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.’

Psalm 92:15
To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

Psalm 94:22
But the Lord has been my stronghold, And my God the rock of my refuge.

Psalm 95:1
Praise to the Lord, and Warning against Unbelief. ] O come, let us sing for joy to the Lord, Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation.

Psalm 144:1
Prayer for Rescue and Prosperity. ] A Psalm of David. ] Blessed be the Lord, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle;

Isaiah 8:14
“Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Isaiah 17:10
For you have forgotten the God of your salvation And have not remembered the rock of your refuge. Therefore you plant delightful plants And set them with vine slips of a strange god.

Isaiah 26:4
“Trust in the Lord forever, For in God the Lord, we have an everlasting Rock.

Isaiah 30:29
You will have songs as in the night when you keep the festival, And gladness of heart as when one marches to the sound of the flute, To go to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel.

Isaiah 44:8
‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’”

Habakkuk 1:12
Are You not from everlasting, O Lord, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. You, O Lord, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct.
(continued)

THANK YOU,

My dear friend in Christ, as a “newbee” you may not know that space is limited here on CAF? Consequently I can’t include your points and my reply.

PLEASE Look for a private message from me.

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM] the OP

 

[PJM]

The Gospel is NOT the root cause of Protestant division. :tsktsk:

The choice to remove themselves from the leadership of the Bishop of Rome is the root cause of Protestant division. Men on both sides of the issues are guilty of leading to this cause in its beginning.

If Not the “cause” [debatable IMO], but I’m getting really JAMED up on this string

It is at the VERY LEAST, the consequences!

And how do you then explain the KING JAMES with 7 deleted chapters, and MANY textual revisions intent on

1. Destroying and replacing Catholicism
2. Inventing a NEW Faith [Luther could not have anticipated the FLOOD GATES he opened]
3. Where is the biblical evidence that God abandoned the CC?
   SEE Mt 16:18-19
   Jn 17:17-20
   Mt 28:19-20

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[josephback]

We are the visible, material, and enduring aspect of the congregations. Each of us, not just as the image of God, as humans, but also as the temple of God as Christians. We are the body of Christ.

CCC 669 As Lord, Christ is also Head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in His Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises 'The kingdom of Christ [is] already already present in mystery," “on earth, the seed and beginning of the kingdom.”

You are correct in saying that Christians are the body of Christ, just as Christ is head of the Church. The difference comes down to the principle of mediation. Whereas Christ is the sole and unique mediator of salvation, this does not preclude others participating in that mediation as His representatives. The priest is alter christus, acting as an image and representative of Christ to the flock. Catholic Ordination carries with it a rank and authority which are generally not claimed by leaders of denominational church bodies, despite having titles. The form is the same, the substance is not. That is why we talk past each other.

 

[Wannano]

If Not the “cause” [debatable IMO], but I’m getting really JAMED up on this string

It is at the VERY LEAST, the consequences!

And how do you then explain the KING JAMES with 7 deleted chapters, and MANY textual revisions intent on

1. Destroying and replacing Catholicism
2. Inventing a NEW Faith [Luther could not have anticipated the FLOOD GATES he opened]
3. Where is the biblical evidence that God abandoned the CC?
   SEE Mt 16:18-19
   Jn 17:17-20
   Mt 28:19-20

God Bless you

Patrick

Yes Patrick, you are right, the Protestant division from the CC is a consequence of the Gospel.

#3 above: Catholics here at caf constantly keep insisting the Bible was written by Catholics for Catholics and that it is a Catholic book. Why would you even think it would contain evidence that God abandoned the CC? Maybe it happened after the Bible was put together?

 

[josephback]

Yes Patrick, you are right, the Protestant division from the CC is a consequence of the Gospel.

#3 above: Catholics here at caf constantly keep insisting the Bible was written by Catholics for Catholics and that it is a Catholic book. Why would you even think it would contain evidence that God abandoned the CC? Maybe it happened after the Bible was put together?

If you believe the last sentence are you willing to consider Mormonism as doctrinally orthodox? Joseph Smith claimed that he was told by an angel to restore the Church which had apostatized at an earlier date. Despite this Mormonism along with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups are routinely denied the hand of fellowship by Reformation derived churches as unorthodox. Much of what these Reformation derived churches consider “orthodoxy” was determined in Church councils by the Church which it is insinuated lost the Gospel. If that is true, on what grounds are Mormonism and other groups denied the hand of fellowship and just who determines what the Gospel is? The heritage of the Reformation leads to Subjectivism in doctrine by making the primacy of the individual in interpretation it’s basic hermeneutic.