One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

[Offdoodykcrn]

I think I understand the question, but I could be wrong… here goes…

I am Christian, and I was almost a Catholic. I attended Catholic school from grade 5-8, I attended catechism classes but decided not to confirm because I had too many unresolved conflicts of my faith & the teachings of the Church. I felt that if I confirmed but did not truly believe in the teachings of the Church, it would be lying - to God - in His house, which was unthinkable. My mother is Catholic and my sister and I went with her to mass for many years.

Although I do not agree with the Church’s teachings, I respect those that do. Many of them believe that unless one is a member of the Catholic Church, one is not really a Christian. My response to that would be Matthew 18:20:

For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

I believe that Jesus is the son of God and I follow His teachings. Does this mean I will be welcomed in heaven? We’ll see.

 

[R_C]

Many of them believe that unless one is a member of the Catholic Church, one is not really a Christian. My response to that would be Matthew 18:20:

I believe that Jesus is the son of God and I follow His teachings. Does this mean I will be welcomed in heaven? We’ll see.

Your witness is very kind and welcome indeed. Remember however what Christ did: he founded a Church. And the apostles said: there is one bread, one body, one Church, of which we are all members and which is the mystical body of Christ, who is Head of the Church. The fact is that each and every validly baptized Christian is a member in partial communion of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which currently subsists in the “Catholic Church” governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

One must realize that each and every Christian community derives from the Catholic Church Surely one may find some of her teachings significantly hard, and the temptation to choose which teachings to follow and which to discard has always been present, even since the days of the Apostles (as we clearly read in the New Testament) and of the Church Fathers. The point is that the Church simply passes down the apostolic teaching, the deposit of faith, as she received it. Nothing novel is introduced, nothing is removed. The deposit of faith obviously grows, because “the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed” which begins very small and grows very much in time, and because to the Apostles Christ said: "there is still much that I must tell you, but you cannot bear it yet…the Holy Spirit will take what is mine and reveal it to you", and he added: "those who listen to you, listen to me - but those who reject you, reject me". Christ adds nothing to His teaching, but never ceases to talk to us and to guide the Church into a greater understanding of the Word, through the apostles and their successors - to them in fact He said: “The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are revealed to you, but they are not revealed to them; so that seeing they may not see”. Christ established a Church, visible and perpetual, with a hierarchy of workers: the faithfuls, the deacons, the presbyters, the elders (‘bishops’), and the chief of the bishops, successor of Peter, His Vicar, to whom He said: “feed my lamb, take care of my sheep”, all the while He remains the invisible Head of the Church.

Christ is clearly next to everyone who calls His name, and God does not reject even those who do not know Christ, not even those who profess to not believe in God (where they call “God” whatever false idol they have constructed in their own mind, pretty much like those who reject the “Church” when they call “Church” whatever idea they themselves came up with, which is obviously not that of Mother of us all and Spouse of Christ).

However, Christ did give His Bride, the Church, some nuptial gifts…the Sacraments, the ordinary means of sanctification…and they are so beautiful…I was myself a Christian for over 10 years - and one who didn’t quite like the Church too much - before my conversion. I realized after receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation and kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament, the Eucharist, that I did not know Christ…that I had heard of this Christ, but I had never met Him…that I heard how God forgave sins, but I had never experienced His forgiveness…I read of this God-man that calls us friends, but I never felt as His friends, but rather as a sinner much afraid of His judgment…I read that He gave us the right to become children of God, but I had never felt in my heart the Spirit crying: “Abba’, dad!”. I heard of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but I knew nothing of them until after Confirmation. I read about true love, true chastity, true liberty from sin, peace in tribulation, serving only one master…but I never truly loved, was never truly chaste, was never free from attachment to sin, never had peace in tribulation, and always served two masters, often despising the light and embracing the darkness. The Church became my home, Confession my personal encounter with Christ, the Mass the moment in which the mystical union of my poor soul with the Divine Bridegroom was consummated. I had always seen the image of the fire coming out of the Sacred Heart of Christ…I had always seen the image of the fire that embraces the blessed seraphim before the throne of God…but I had never felt it in my heart and around my soul…and the day I did, when I realized that in the Church I had found Christ and had fallen in love with Him…that day I realized what the Church was, and that there was no rule to harsh or difficult for me not to give full assent of will and mind…out of love, all things are possible, and we long to drink of the same chalice He drank from…to experience on our shoulder the Cross and on our head the Crown of Thorns, until the blessed day when we will be transformed in the blink of an eye, and see Him face to face…

…I pray that God may keep you and all always in His Sacred Heart, tight between it and the thorns that surround it, where none may touch you…but how much simpler would the Via Crucis be if you walked closer to the Church…!

 

[liturgyluver]

Some have touched on this subject in other threads. Many non Catholics do not proclaim a belief in the Creeds. They do not believe in OHCAC. For those who believe that they are members of the OHCAC that are not Catholic or Orthodox, how do you back up such belief if your denomination has broken away from the OHCAC? This has always puzzled me and I hope to gain an understanding with this thread!

As ever, it all depends on your interpretation of the particular words and they mean different things to different Christians. For example, Orthodox Christianity would argue, in fact, that it is the historical continuation of the original church, not the Western Catholic Church. Roman Catholics interpert the creedal statement (or elements within it) as applying specifically to the Roman Catholic Church and those in communion with her. The mainstream protestant denominations believe that catholic in this context (and in their Creeds it normally has a small “c”) is a reference to the universality of Christ’s Church. As for apostolic sucession (apart from Anglicans who believe they have maintained it through the Episcopy, and some Lutherans) most of the other protestant denominations see apostolic continuity being delivered through the written word and authority of apostolic scripture.

Hope this helps explain the differences in interpretation.

 

[Ebouty]

Is it truly the Roman Catholic Church Apostolic? And why not following Pauls, an Apostle when he said that “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds” 2 Corinthians 10:4? Bacause that is the case of Jesuit.

 

[cheezey]

As ever,** it all depends on your interpretation of the particular words and they mean different things to different Christians.** For example, Orthodox Christianity would argue, in fact, that it is the historical continuation of the original church, not the Western Catholic Church. Roman Catholics interpert the creedal statement (or elements within it) as applying specifically to the Roman Catholic Church and those in communion with her. The mainstream protestant denominations believe that catholic in this context (and in their Creeds it normally has a small “c”) is a reference to the universality of Christ’s Church. As for apostolic sucession (apart from Anglicans who believe they have maintained it through the Episcopy, and some Lutherans) most of the other protestant denominations sees apostolic continuity being delivered through the written word and authority of apostolic scriprture.

Hope this helps explain the differences in interpretation.

thank you

 

[R_C]

Is it truly the Roman Catholic Church Apostolic? And why not following Pauls, an Apostle when he said that “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds” 2 Corinthians 10:4? Bacause that is the case of Jesuit.

What???

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

The Church of England never broke away from the Catholic Church. She was unilaterally excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome (who also called for Elizabeth I to be overthrown and killed, and whose predecessor supported the Spanish Armada). Anglicans will argue that the Pope has no such power. Roman Catholics will disagree.

Either way, we are all very members incorporate in the mystical Body of Christ through Baptism which, creedally speaking, is the Catholic Church.

Go and read your History Books, when the Holy Father at the time would not give
King Henry V111 his divorce from Catherine Of Aragon (King of Spain’s daughter) to marry his mistress- Anne Boleyn- who was carrying his child which he hoped was a boy, When Pope Clement refused to give him his divorce, Henry pronounced himself as head of the Church of England ( which the present Queen Elizabeth is also Head of the C of E) Henry then proceeded to chop heads of if anyone would not agree to this, ordinary people as well as Peerage, Thomas Moore was one of the many who lost his head because he would not swear as was required of all English residents that Henry was head of the Church and not the Pope, and as Thomas Moore said, from the Scaffold " I am the King’s good servant, But God’s first.
Thousands of Priests, Nuns, and all Religious were expelled from England as they would not take the oath, then when Priests did come back into England on the quiet to tend to there Catholic flock who were now having to keep them faith quiet in fear of being beheaded, these Priests were executed for following the Catholic faith on arrival into England, so when you say that the Church of England never broke away from the Church of Rome, so why then did Henry V111 proclaim himself as Head of the Church, broke from Rome, and killed anyone who said they were Roman Catholic, lay person or priest, and you say that Church of England never broke from Rome, one only has to visit England to see the total devastation done by Henry and his Daughter Elizabeth , all monasteries, convents, are now derelict . The Pious Kings prior to Heretic Henry must be turning in there graves.

 

[GKC]

Go and read your History Books, when the Holy Father at the time would not give
King Henry V111 his divorce from Catherine Of Aragon (King of Spain’s daughter) to marry his mistress- Anne Boleyn- who was carrying his child which he hoped was a boy, When Pope Clement refused to give him his divorce, Henry pronounced himself as head of the Church of England ( which the present Queen Elizabeth is also Head of the C of E) Henry then proceeded to chop heads of if anyone would not agree to this, ordinary people as well as Peerage, Thomas Moore was one of the many who lost his head because he would not swear as was required of all English residents that Henry was head of the Church and not the Pope, and as Thomas Moore said, from the Scaffold " I am the King’s good servant, But God’s first.
Thousands of Priests, Nuns, and all Religious were expelled from England as they would not take the oath, then when Priests did come back into England on the quiet to tend to there Catholic flock who were now having to keep them faith quiet in fear of being beheaded, these Priests were executed for following the Catholic faith on arrival into England, so when you say that the Church of England never broke away from the Church of Rome, so why then did Henry V111 proclaim himself as Head of the Church, broke from Rome, and killed anyone who said they were Roman Catholic, lay person or priest, and you say that Church of England never broke from Rome, one only has to visit England to see the total devastation done by Henry and his Daughter Elizabeth , all monasteries, convents, are now derelict . The Pious Kings prior to Heretic Henry must be turning in there graves.

Decree of nullity.

Henry was Supreme Head of the Church in England. The current Sovereign, and all since Elizabeth I, is the Supreme Governor of the Church.

GKC

 

[jmcrae]

Decree of nullity.

He could not get a decree of nullity because in order to marry her in the first place (she was his cousin) he needed the approval of the Pope - which was given.

Having given his approval for the marriage, now he is supposed to call himself a liar and say that the approval should never have been given, and that the marriage is null?

The Pope didn’t like to be taken for an idiot, nor to be used as a tool for the advancement of goals that had nothing to do with the Church.

 

[GKC]

He could not get a decree of nullity because in order to marry her in the first place (she was his cousin) he needed the approval of the Pope - which was given.

Having given his approval for the marriage, now he is supposed to call himself a liar and say that the approval should never have been given, and that the marriage is null?

The Pope didn’t like to be taken for an idiot, nor to be used as a tool for the advancement of goals that had nothing to do with the Church.

This suggests a lack of knowledge of the history.

She wasn’t his cousin, if we are speaking of Catherine. She was the widow of his brother Arthur.

It wasn’t Clement that gave the original dispensation from the impediment of affinity in the first degree was arose from that marriage. It was Julius.

It is a complicated historical story, that has been a hobby of mine for around 15 years. I may have mentioned that before. Certainly it is a subject I’ve posted on here, often, and at length, in detail, over the years.

GKC

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Decree of nullity.

Henry was Supreme Head of the Church in England. The current Sovereign, and all since Elizabeth I, is the Supreme Governor of the Church.

GKC

Interesting distinction. I hadn’t been aware of that. Which title did Edward VI have?

 

[GKC]

Interesting distinction. I hadn’t been aware of that. Which title did Edward VI have?

Henry and Edward were, by Act of Parliament (Act of Supremacy, 1534) styled Head. Elizabeth’s Act of Supremacy (1559) changed that to Governor. So it remains.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

I love having GKC on this board. A naughty part of me wishes there was someone like him in English catechism classes (of all denominations) just mumbling the words “Decree of nullify” loud enough for everyone to hear…

 

[Indifferently]

I suspect that, much like the dropping of the 42 Articles and the defeat of the Spanish (pope sponsored) Armada’s defeat, the choice of Supreme Governor for the English Church senior layperson was an act of God’s will. Shame the Left have squandered it.

 

[GKC]

I love having GKC on this board. A naughty part of me wishes there was someone like him in English catechism classes (of all denominations) just mumbling the words “Decree of nullify” loud enough for everyone to hear…

I thank you very much. You are very kind.

Decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I suspect that, much like the dropping of the 42 Articles and the defeat of the Spanish (pope sponsored) Armada’s defeat, the choice of Supreme Governor for the English Church senior layperson was an act of God’s will. Shame the Left have squandered it.

As to the first, I’m not sure. History doesn’t give me a lot of insight into that, and I am a history person, mainly. Bought 7 books on British history last Friday, 5 on the Tudor period.

Elizabeth had the title changed to Governor because she thought Head a little presumptuous.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Decree of nullity.

GKC

Indeed.

 

[Indifferently]

Elizabeth had the title changed to Governor because she thought Head a little presumptuous.

GKC

Was she truly responsible for the poem about the Eucharist? It sounds too good to be true.

 

[masuwerte]

I love having GKC on this board.

Yeah, me too.

 

[GKC]

Was she truly responsible for the poem about the Eucharist? It sounds too good to be true.

It is certainly often attributed to her, but not sourced. OTOH, it was certainly written, eventually, by John Donne. Whether he originated it, I don’t know.

I’ll look over the bios I have of her tomorrow, but I don’t recall any that asserted she was the author, with any confidence.

GKC