Pope Says There is Only One True Church

[Man]

Grace Seeker,

I also think that estesbob may have misspoken.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

1. You are prepared to assume that everyone in your church goes to Heaven. How is that not “bringing Jesus down?”

I would hope that to be true. But I don’t assume it. I specifically said all Christians are saints. I didn’t say all who claim to be Christians. There is a difference.

But the Catholic church recognizes the baptism of every member of my church, so if you believe in the saving power of God at work in the sacrament of baptism, then perhaps it is true that all members of my church are going to heaven.

1. The teachings of the Catholic Church are updated as our ability to understand the Truth improves.

So, are you saying that all those I cited misunderstood the truth? What other teachings of the church have been updated so as to change the meaning of what even the apostles taught?

Now, will you answer my question?

What question is that?

Is your question can we agree on your statement:
The biggest differences between the Orthodox and Catholic and other Protestants is the sacramental nature of the ancient churches.

No, we cannot agree. I think the biggest difference between these groups is their respective views on authority.

 

[guanophore]

It seems to me that if one is a Christian, and the Catholic church readily admits that even non-Catholics can be considered to be Christian and are also redeemed by Christ, and if there is a unity of in Christ of all who are redeemed, then there is indeed a unity of all Christians. I believe in this communion of the saints, yet the Pope will NOT recognize that members of this communion are also members of the body of Christ which is the Church. To hold both positions at the same time is not something that I can understand. We non-Catholics are good enough for Christ, but not good enough for Christ’s Church is what it seems to come down to. And I would think that to be an untenable position for any Christian to hold.

I see your point, all your points, really. However, I don’t understand what you mean by “the Pope will NOT recognize”…

It clearly states in the catechism that the Church recognizes the HS working in various ecclesiastical communities, and that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. The Pope cannot contradict the teaching of the Church. Therefore, he accepts that we are all part of the communion of saints.

 

[guanophore]

You may feel that it would be “bringing Jesus down”, but I remind you that this is your opinion and not one shared found in the historic usage of tradition you are now a part of. If the teachings of the Catholic church have supposedly not changed over the ages, then the term may be applied equally to Christians on earth (as those that I cited did) as it is to those in heaven. To say that this is improper is to refer to those on earth as saints is to say that Paul, Luke, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraneous and many others throughout the life of the Catholic church used the term improperly. Is that something you really want to say?

You are correct, of course, that the earliest usages of this word “saints” was to all believers. To the extent that we are all “called out ones” and “set aside” to become pure vessels, we are all saints. However, we recognize that some are further along in the area of personal sanctity than others, and that some persons more fully demonstrate the “saintly” nature that God wants all of us to acquire. Sainthood is a process that begins at the moment of justification, and continues until we are united again with our Heavenly Father.

 

[onenow1]

Hi,

1 Corinthians 1​

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius;
15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

Comment: Think St. Paul agrees with him.

Peace, OneNow1, :coffeeread:

 

[Man]

…
What question is that?
…
Is your question can we agree on your statement:
The biggest differences between the Orthodox and Catholic and other Protestants is the sacramental nature of the ancient churches.

No, we cannot agree. I think the biggest difference between these groups is their respective views on authority.

No. The difference between those the Pope gives the title “Church” to in the document and the Protestants is the centuries old sacramental Tradition. Are you really a pastor?

My question is clearly intent on the founding of the Methodist church itself. We see in it many aspects of the Catholic Church, which the founders chose to keep. And those other things, which maybe they didn’t know, or maybe they decided they disagreed with. So is your church the true church or is it the Baptists or Lutherans? …and then we sink into relativism.

The document is addressed in one way, to the Orthodox, as the Pope asserts himself as first and greater. And to the Protestants that they are little like the Orthodox or Catholic Churches, from which they came.

What question is that?

 

[Man]

Hi,

1 Corinthians 1​

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius;
15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

Comment: Think St. Paul agrees with him.

Peace, OneNow1, :coffeeread:

**The various churches of the world regularly have a “head pastor.” It is… required… for *authentic *unity.
**

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You are correct, of course, that the earliest usages of this word “saints” was to all believers. To the extent that we are all “called out ones” and “set aside” to become pure vessels, we are all saints. However, we recognize that some are further along in the area of personal sanctity than others, and that some persons more fully demonstrate the “saintly” nature that God wants all of us to acquire. Sainthood is a process that begins at the moment of justification, and continues until we are united again with our Heavenly Father.

Yes, I could write pages on sanctification. I agree with you that it is a process begun in the believer at the moment of regeneration. It continues through the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. Probably unlike you, I think that it is possible (thought exceedingly rare) that the Holy Spirit might complete that work of entire sanctification even in this life whereby one would not even desire anything other than God and God’s will for one’s life. This seems to be the exception, but I will not preclude it from beyond the realim of possibility with God. More normative is that we progress sometimes smoothly, sometimes haltingly, someitmes even loosing ground, along this process of sanctification until it is brought to complete in our lives at the time of our glorification with Christ in heaven.

None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, but I love talking about sanctification, and your post gave me another chance.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

No. The difference between those the Pope gives the title “Church” to in the document and the Protestants is the centuries old sacramental Tradition.

You asked if we could agree? But I didn’t realize that it was more than a rhetorical question.

You then asked me if I would answer your question. And so I did.

But when I give my answer you aren’t willing to accept it as my answer. And you have to once again provide your own answer, which you had stated previously. That’s fine. Now everyone has had a chance to view your position twice.

Do you ask questions to learn what others think, or only to hear yourself talk?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

It clearly states in the catechism that the Church recognizes the HS working in various ecclesiastical communities, and that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. The Pope cannot contradict the teaching of the Church. Therefore, he accepts that we are all part of the communion of saints.

First, If the Catholic church teaches that we are all part of the communion of saints, and the Pope accepts this, why do I find opposition to that idea from other Catholics posting here?

Second, if we are all part of the communion of saints, how can it be that we are not then also all part of the body of Christ?

 

[Man]

First, If the Catholic church teaches that we are all part of the communion of saints, and the Pope accepts this, why do I find opposition to that idea from other Catholics posting here?

All Catholics are not fully formed, in fact, formation should rather be considered an activity the occurs throughout life. Someone mentioned this about “Sainthood” before, which follow into…

Second, if we are all part of the communion of saints, how can it be that we are not then also all part of the body of Christ?

In the "S"aints version of the term, which has overshadowed other uses of the word in the Catholic Church, it is those individuals that we know to be in Heaven. Thus, I don’t believe any Catholic… leader… has ever told you that you couldn’t use that term to refer to your congregation.

This, though, appears to be were the… discussion comes from.

Moving on…

You asked if we could agree? But I didn’t realize that it was more than a rhetorical question.

You then asked me if I would answer your question. And so I did.

But when I give my answer you aren’t willing to accept it as my answer. And you have to once again provide your own answer, which you had stated previously. That’s fine. Now everyone has had a chance to view your position twice.

Do you ask questions to learn what others think, or only to hear yourself talk?

How can I prove my love to you?

To you, it sounded like the same answer, but to those who wanted to better understand the document, I’m certain they sounded like different answers, wherein the second describes the first at length.

In the second, I explain that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are linked, not just by their Apostolic nature, but also in the seven sacraments. This then, is the mark of a “true Church.” I learned that in RCIA (adult confirmation classes). I also explained that, because other churches don’t have these centuries old traditions, pillars of the faith really, that they are instead ecclesiastic communities.

Now, I have repeated myself.

The question was not rhetorical. The church you belong to has doctrine and dogma. The Methodist Church calls these “Articles of the Faith.” If I go to the UMC website I can read all about how my so-called “Sola-Scriptura” rights are… incomplete. The doctrine, in this way was taken from the Catholic Church and the insights of its founders, based not on a historically understood Bible, but rather how he interpreted it for himself.

I was wondering if you think that that is true.

And if anyone else is listening and I helped them… May peace be with you.

David

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I could write pages on sanctification. I agree with you that it is a process begun in the believer at the moment of regeneration. It continues through the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. Probably unlike you, I think that it is possible (thought exceedingly rare) that the Holy Spirit might complete that work of entire sanctification even in this life whereby one would not even desire anything other than God and God’s will for one’s life. This seems to be the exception, but I will not preclude it from beyond the realim of possibility with God. More normative is that we progress sometimes smoothly, sometimes haltingly, someitmes even loosing ground, along this process of sanctification until it is brought to complete in our lives at the time of our glorification with Christ in heaven.

None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, but I love talking about sanctification, and your post gave me another chance.

On the contrary, I think that those who complete sanctification here on earth are those whom the Catholic church recognizes as Holy Martyrs and Saints. Starting with the thief on the cross, down to the present day. It has bearing on this thread to the extent that all persons who are connected to Christ, the head of the Church, are members of the One True Church. Since there IS only one, we must, by default, all be members thereof, whether we like it, or not! I have corresponded with some fundamentalists on this thread who are appalled at the very thought that they would be in the same Body with a Cathollic.

 

[guanophore]

First, If the Catholic church teaches that we are all part of the communion of saints, and the Pope accepts this, why do I find opposition to that idea from other Catholics posting here?

Not all Catholics are properly catechized about what their Church teaches.

There are some Catholics who are narrow minded and bigoted.

Second, if we are all part of the communion of saints, how can it be that we are not then also all part of the body of Christ?

Both things are true, but being part of the One Body, as all who are in Christ are, does not mean that the Body functions as it is intended. Some of the body parts function more like they have had a stroke! Still connected, but very limited in functioning. Some behave as though they have a grave disease, and seem to be in danger of being amputated, to prevent the whole body from infection.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Now, I have repeated myself.

The question was not rhetorical. The church you belong to has doctrine and dogma. The Methodist Church calls these “Articles of the Faith.” If I go to the UMC website I can read all about how my so-called “Sola-Scriptura” rights are… incomplete.

The Solas are not part of the Anglican/Methodist tradition. Never have been.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The Solas are not part of the Anglican/Methodist tradition. Never have been.

A United Methodis pastor quite near you and in many ways Catholic and one with whom you agree quite a bit would contend that sola scriptura is indeed cental to the Methodist tradition. I agree with you but he wouldn’t. I don’t think he’s alone.

CDL

 

[Man]

The Solas are not part of the Anglican/Methodist tradition. Never have been.

How could I forget, Methodist is Anglican background…

Well, I’ll have to move one then. Methodist require a more ordered discussion.

We can start at the same place, however…

Like this:

Acknowledging that there are many people who can make various proofs out of Scripture…

Why is it that you prefer the interpretation of the Bible you use, to that presented by the Catholic Church?

 

[Ahimsa]

A United Methodis pastor quite near you and in many ways Catholic and one with whom you agree quite a bit would contend that sola scriptura is indeed cental to the Methodist tradition. I agree with you but he wouldn’t. I don’t think he’s alone.

CDL

The minister is confusing “sola scriptura” with “prima scriptura”:

Another version of the prima scriptura approach may be the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which maintains that Scripture is to be the primary authority for the Church, but that it is properly interpreted through the lens of Church tradition, reason, and one’s personal experience, but the Bible still remains the crucial and normative authority for Christians.

 

[Man]

I am still certain that the minister in my young formation used Sola Scriptura to some extent, he was Methodist. This pertains to the creation and belief in various dogmatic things, I believe, rather than moral teachings…

 

[Grace_Seeker]

How can I prove my love to you?

Are you, is the Catholic church, really interested in doing this? Then love me as Hosea loved Gomer, as God has loved humanity, as Christ loves us. You do recognize that I am imperfect, in fact you (refer to the Catholic church, not you personally) make dogma about how we are imperfectly connected to your one true church. Well recognize both things, that we are imperfect and that we are connected. In other words there actually is unity. Guanophore says that there is unity, but it is imperfect, that we Protestants acts as if we have had a stroke. Well, my wife has had two strokes. Guess what, when I married her I promised to love her not just in health, but in sickness as well. And loving her in sickness doesn’t mean I spend my time pointing out her imperfectness. Rather, I try to emphasize what we can do together. Personally, I think you (the Catholic church) have made a bad call in arriving at any theology that will not share the Eucharistic meal of Christ with all who you recognize as belonging to Christ (in your case that would be all baptized Christians), but the Catholic church is not the only church to be in such error. I suppose that is one of the things I have to learn to live with about you, just as there are things about me that you have to learn to live with. But if you are going to love me, then take the time to say so, and not an “I love you, but…” type of statement. I need to hear “I love you no matter what.” After all we are family. We joined to one another whether either of us likes it or not because we have the same Father, the same brother, the same Lord, and yes even the same faith, though we seem to speak about it in different dialects.

Our oneness isn’t in the Catholic church, but in the universal Church of Jesus Christ. You seem to think they are identical, and I don’t and we could argue that question forever I suppose. But I don’t know that it would accomplish anything. So, rather than pointing accusing fingers (“you done wrong”) at one another, let us find those places that we can offer one another the right hand of fellowship.

For one, we in the UMC at least, don’t practice “sola Scriptura” any more than you do. So, you can just leave that baggage outside.

Also, I have to laugh at the idea that we don’t have centuries old traditions. True the United Methodist Church has only been around since 1968. But our history is much longer. Part of it goes back to and through Jacob Albright and Philip Otterbein. Persons who came out of Germanic protestantism were founders of groups that later became incorporated into United Methodism. But the name most closely identified with the Methodist movement is John Wesley, an Anglican priest from the 1700s. That gives us at least 300 years of history, which I think qualifies as centuries.

Of course, as I laughingly told my parents once, when they were trying to quibble over which side of the family had more interesting history, it didn’t really matter to me which one of them won the argument, I could claim everything that either one of them could and then some. So, when you say that we United Methodists don’t have any history, I laugh. For the most part, my history and your history are exactly the same history, at least from King Henry VIII and back. So, you can leave that baggage at the door too.

In short, I don’t see anything that you got in the Catholic church that we ain’t got in the United Methodist Church, unless you want to count arrogance about your own self-importance, but sometimes we are plenty arrogant too. So, I can’t hold that against you.

I agree with your Pope Benedict, there is just one true Church, and all Christians belong to it whether they recognize they do or not. And it is indeed a catholic Church in the sense that catholic means universal. I dispute that there is an earthly intermediary for Christ seated in Rome, but every institution needs an earthly government and if your particular ecclesiastical community desires to see that in your earthly leader, I guess that is your business. My ecclesiatical community does not, and I guess that is our business. But the key is that both of our ecclesiastical communitiies are nonetheless part of Christ’s one true Church with Christ as head of its body and we each as its members. I would hope that we can recognize each other as members of this one Church without trying to separate members from that body. I would not separate you from it, and knowing now that you want unity in the body and not division, I am sure you will not wish to declare me separated when Christ himself says that I am a member.

 

[Ahimsa]

Are you, is the Catholic church, really interested in doing this?..
…I would not separate you from it, and knowing now that you want unity in the body and not division, I am sure you will not wish to declare me separated when Christ himself says that I am a member.

Very well said.