Protestants, how can this be possible?

[Grace_Seeker]

I used to be a Methodist.

When I was a Methodist, I had a very distorted view of the Catholic Church based in misinformation and ignorance.

I made a very simple point that is true.

Jesus only started one Church.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please point it out.

I agree that it is true. What you don’t get is the lack of relevance such a statement has for someone who does not share your worldview.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

As a former protestant, I think I have a pretty good idea how non Catholics feel about the Church.

And the worldview I am talking about is not simply because you are Catholic. It is because your statement also reflects a modern mindset. Whereas the question was put to you from a postmodern mindset.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Jesus founded one Church, it still exists, and it will always exist.

I love the Catholic Church and I thank Jesus for the grace that led me here!!

And again I agree with both statements. But you will note that as two independent sentences they are therefore also two independent thoughts. Only a Catholic would think these two statements are in anyway related to each other.

 

[PRmerger]

What you don’t get is the lack of relevance such a statement has for someone who does not share your worldview.

GraceSeeker, have you ever had a conversation with a non-Christian in which you proclaimed that Jesus is Lord? He might have responded to you, “That statement has no relevance for someone who does not share your worldview.”

His worldview does not change the fact that “Jesus is Lord” is a true statement.

Similarly, your worldview, whether you share it with Catholics or not, does not change the fact that Jesus started One Church, and there’s only One Church that can trace its lineage straight back to Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree that it is true. What you don’t get is the lack of relevance such a statement has for someone who does not share your worldview.

So, you don’t think it’s rather important to become a member of the Church that Christ founded?

 

[PRmerger]

Source for what?

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints publishes an annual report that includes the number of new languages that their material has been published in;
• UBS publishes an annual report on Bible translation, and how many languages are still without the Gospel;

jonathon

What is the UBS?

 

[PRmerger]

First, there are many people who, thinking in a post-modern mindset, would have no problem holding two diametertically contradictory truths at the same time. While this may not be something that you can resonate with, it is a reality for other people’s experience.

So you believe that it’s quite reasonable to believe, “The pope is the anti-Christ” and “the pope is the vicar of Christ” at the same time?

Is it also reasonable to proclaim, “The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ” and at the same time also claim, “The Eucharist is NOT the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.”

Really, Grace???

 

[PRmerger]

And again I agree with both statements. But you will note that as two independent sentences they are therefore also two independent thoughts. Only a Catholic would think these two statements are in anyway related to each other.

Or someone who’s seeking the Truth.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

GraceSeeker, have you ever had a conversation with a non-Christian in which you proclaimed that Jesus is Lord? He might have responded to you, “That statement has no relevance for someone who does not share your worldview.”

His worldview does not change the fact that “Jesus is Lord” is a true statement.

Similarly, your worldview, whether you share it with Catholics or not, does not change the fact that Jesus started One Church, and there’s only One Church that can trace its lineage straight back to Jesus.

And I also agree with that. But I would have you note that if I am going to share the Christian faith with a non-Christian, then I must actually address the question he is asking, rather than make my own assertion that is unrelated to his question. Again, the question that was asked by live63 is:

Wow, interesting reading from all who have posted.

I have but one simple question though. With all the different denominations, beliefs and churches,
How do we know, whether or not we have it right?

To answer as ChestertonRules has with:

Jesus only started one Church.

Is to not address the question.

Yes, Jesus started only ONE church. But with all of the different denominations, beliefs and churches, who do we know whether or not any of them have it right, including the Catholic church. Personal experience can tell each of us of a time when every church that we might consider has gotten it wrong. That Catholic church is not immune from that. I would assert that there is no church composed of human beings that has it right, not all of it all right all the time. We’ve all got it wrong, at least in part. And unless you can do better than suggesting that the Catholic church is the ONE church that Jesus started, you still haven’t address the real question that is being asked, which is how do we know that even it, the Catholic church, is right. Just because the Catholic church says so. Or, using a circular argument, because the Catholic church says that Jesus says the Catholic church is right. We need better answers than this first for live63, and then for those non-Christians that I am talking to.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So you believe that it’s quite reasonable to believe, “The pope is the anti-Christ” and “the pope is the vicar of Christ” at the same time?

Is it also reasonable to proclaim, “The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ” and at the same time also claim, “The Eucharist is NOT the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.”

Really, Grace???

I didn’t say that I held such diametrically opposite beliefs. But realize that there are people who do. And if the Church is going to witness to them, it must learn to understand the questions they are asking, rather than just addressing the ones it feels comfortable addressing.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So, you don’t think it’s rather important to become a member of the Church that Christ founded?

I don’t think the Church that Christ founded and the Church you think that Christ founded are one and the same. I don’t believe that Christ founded and institution. The Church that Christ founded is an assembly of all who believe in him as their Lord and Savior. That includes many who are outside of any institutional church. But it does exist anytime two or three or more are gathered in his name, regardless of institutional affiliation.

But to answer your question more directly, Yes, I do think it is important for a person to be a member of the Church that Christ founded. What I don’t understand is why Catholics think anyone not included in their particular institutional form of that Church is excluded from the Church that Christ founded. If a person accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior, then he is a member of the body of Christ. And if a member of the body of Christ, then he is a member of Christ’s Church. Some of these people will also happen to be members of the institutional Catholic church, but if they are not it doesn’t remove them from the body of Christ. And no teaching fo the Catholic church on that point to the contrary can change the truth of scripture which declares that we who share in this common faith in Jesus Christ are therefore also all members of the one body. Though the head may say to the foot you are not a part of the body, it doesn’t make it so. And neither does the Catholic may say to the non-Catholic you are not a part of the body make it so. The Spirit of Christ has said we are. And all your centuries of teaching to the contrary don’t mean a thing against that ttestimony.

 

[Jason_1977]

And again I agree with both statements. But you will note that as two independent sentences they are therefore also two independent thoughts. Only a Catholic would think these two statements are in anyway related to each other.

a silly comment such as that one leads me to believe that you are more interested in labeling and looking for differences. This type of person right here just fatigues me to no end. THis is the sort that thinks all catholics are going to hell. peck, peck, peck, peck…yeah…here comes the labeling. SWEET. THAT was only a matter of time!

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say that I held such diametrically opposite beliefs. But realize that there are people who do.

You believe that there are reasonable people who believe, “The pope is the anti-Christ” AND “The pope is the vicar of Christ” at the same time???

I understand that you don’t hold such a view, but you believe that reasonable people may?

 

[jmcrae]

And I also agree with that. But I would have you note that if I am going to share the Christian faith with a non-Christian, then I must actually address the question he is asking, rather than make my own assertion that is unrelated to his question. Again, the question that was asked by live63 is:

To answer as ChestertonRules has with:Is to not address the question.

Yes, Jesus started only ONE church. But with all of the different denominations, beliefs and churches, who do we know whether or not any of them have it right, including the Catholic church. Personal experience can tell each of us of a time when every church that we might consider has gotten it wrong. That Catholic church is not immune from that. I would assert that there is no church composed of human beings that has it right, not all of it all right all the time. We’ve all got it wrong, at least in part. And unless you can do better than suggesting that the Catholic church is the ONE church that Jesus started, you still haven’t address the real question that is being asked, which is how do we know that even it, the Catholic church, is right. Just because the Catholic church says so. Or, using a circular argument, because the Catholic church says that Jesus says the Catholic church is right. We need better answers than this first for live63, and then for those non-Christians that I am talking to.

Jesus said to Peter, “Thou art Rock and on this rock I am building my Church.”

Jesus said to the crowds, “Build your house on the Rock; do not build it on shifting sand, for the house that was built on sand fell, and mighty was the fall of it, but the house that was built on the rock endured.”

Jesus said to Simon Peter, after forgiving him for his betrayal and restoring him to his Office, “Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.” Thus, He made Peter to be the Chief Shepherd of the Church (aka the Pope).

There is an unbroken line of successors to Peter. The living Successor today - the last person in that unbroken line - is Pope Benedict XVI, the present Bishop of Rome, and head of the Catholic Church.

In a very few simple steps, we see that Christ established a Church, that He appointed Peter to be its first Pope, and that Peter’s lawful successor as Pope is the present-day Bishop of Rome.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

a silly comment such as that one leads me to believe that you are more interested in labeling and looking for differences. This type of person right here just fatigues me to no end. THis is the sort that thinks all catholics are going to hell. peck, peck, peck, peck…yeah…here comes the labeling. SWEET. THAT was only a matter of time!

Find one place on this forum or any forum where I have said anything even close to the idea that all Catholics are going to hell. You read in what you want. But I have never said such a thing.

As for you personally, keep attacking me and I might change my mind.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

In a very few simple steps, we see that Christ established a Church, that He appointed Peter to be its first Pope, and that Peter’s lawful successor as Pope is the present-day Bishop of Rome.

No. I don’t see that from what you presented.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think the Church that Christ founded and the Church you think that Christ founded are one and the same. I don’t believe that Christ founded and institution.

What or who do you think was meeting in the Cenacle, in Acts 15? Was that not an authoritative institution meeting in council? (Leaving aside the argument about who was in charge of that meeting, what exactly do you think was going on up there?)

The Church that Christ founded is an assembly of all who believe in him as their Lord and Savior. That includes many who are outside of any institutional church.

How did the participants in the Council that is recorded in Acts 15 respond to folks who said, “We can be Christians without following your rules”?

But it does exist anytime two or three or more are gathered in his name, regardless of institutional affiliation.

What happened to the Christians who ceased to affiliate with the Disciples after learning the outcome of the Council meeting in Acts 15? Were they looked upon kindly as “fellow Christians who just happen to believe differently than us” or do we find that they were formally excommunicated and ceased to be allowed to call themselves Christians? Read it carefully - what does St. Paul say about them?

But to answer your question more directly, Yes, I do think it is important for a person to be a member of the Church that Christ founded. What I don’t understand is why Catholics think anyone not included in their particular institutional form of that Church is excluded from the Church that Christ founded.

For the same reason that the Judaizers were no longer to be called “Christians” after the Apostles ruled on the subject of circumcision, and allowed the Gentiles to become members of the Church.

If a person accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior, then he is a member of the body of Christ.

Do you think that the Judaizers were denying Christ as Lord and Saviour?

And if a member of the body of Christ, then he is a member of Christ’s Church. Some of these people will also happen to be members of the institutional Catholic church, but if they are not it doesn’t remove them from the body of Christ. And no teaching fo the Catholic church on that point to the contrary can change the truth of scripture which declares that we who share in this common faith in Jesus Christ are therefore also all members of the one body. Though the head may say to the foot you are not a part of the body, it doesn’t make it so.

They still need to be actually attached to the same body, however - don’t you think?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You believe that there are reasonable people who believe, “The pope is the anti-Christ” AND “The pope is the vicar of Christ” at the same time???

I understand that you don’t hold such a view, but you believe that reasonable people may?

I am learning that there are reasonable people who think dramatically different than I. This newly emergent post-modern world processes information as differently from how I grew up thinking as did people of the Englightenment process their thougts differently from those of the medieval ages before them. We are in that time of transition between them. And while I am not comfortable with such thought processes, I have to recognize that they exist.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Do you think that the Judaizers were denying Christ as Lord and Saviour?

Indeed they were. They were making salvation something that was done by a work, circumcision, rather than God’s grace. This is why it was not required. One did not have to be Jewish to be a Christian. Similarly, one does not have to be Catholic to be a Christian. One needs only to be connected with Jesus Christ. The institution of the Jewish society was not needed. It was sufficient to belong to Christ and Christ alone.

They still need to be actually attached to the same body, however - don’t you think?

And we non-Catholics are. Remember, that body exists whereever two or three are gathered in his name. We are attached. We aren’t saying that the body isn’t important. We are say that the body is bigger than you ever imagined. For we know that we are a part of the body. And we know that we are attached to the body. Wake up and smell the coffee, the catholic Church is bigger than the Catholic church.

 

[jmcrae]

I am learning that there are reasonable people who think dramatically different than I. This newly emergent post-modern world processes information as differently from how I grew up thinking as did people of the Englightenment process their thougts differently from those of the medieval ages before them. We are in that time of transition between them. And while I am not comfortable with such thought processes, I have to recognize that they exist.

This is not “post-modernism” (which is a process of picking and choosing from a variety of different traditions, to create a new one) - this is a form of insanity.

Post-modernism as a whole contains contradictory ideas, but the individuals within it (unless they happen to be crazy) hold to their own unique set of ideas. (For example, one might choose to follow the Shinto religion while preferring classical European music, collecting Picassos, and eating Indian food. But they wouldn’t directly contradict themselves. Post-modern man may walk on the don’t walk, but he still looks both ways before crossing, even so.)