Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2

[guanophore]

  Anyways Jesus did not say, " I am going to do away with this problem of differing "opinions, The new testament will not have this problem for I will give them a catholic church to dispense truth perfectly."

Basically you are saying that Jesus’ prayer for unity has no value…that division and separation is tolerable. But what does the Apostle teach us about divisions?

" For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized". 1 Corinthians 11:18–20

And how were those who were genuine to be recognized?

Factions and divisions are not the fruit of the Spirit, but the fruit of the enemy. There is no room for “differing opinions” in the Church Jesus founded (at least where doctrine is concerned)

" As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:3–4

Diversity will be there till the end, just like the poor.

Diversity is one thing, heterodoxy is another. Diversity is a reference to differences in customs, clothing, language, food, and cultural practices. People of very different diversity can have the same doctrine. Just as the early Christians in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt had identical doctrine. One Faith, One Church - diversity of members.

This is a modern fabrication to justify division. Jesus promised unity to His Church, and that He would send His Spirit to lead them into “all Truth”. Once we embrace error we will walk through the gates of hell, as you yourself have observed, disciplines and practices are based upon doctrine.

I think you are trying to justify your church by this diversity issue. The fact is while we have differences the bigger picture shows a more universally unified church if we are willing to see it.

I think it is a great testimony to the unity of faith that there are so many Churches founded by the Apostles all over the world with a huge diversity of culture, yet unity in doctrine.

Jesus sees our differences and He will manage to make a bride out of us all yet ,

I do believe and pray for this also, but we are not helping by pretending that unity should not exist.

Yes the church has a role for truth dispensing, but not to it’s own justification, for it is really the Holy Spirit’s ministry to author any good outcome.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The Church has the duty to retain what has been passed down to us from the Apostles. We are not at liberty to change the doctrines of the faith and justify that “differences of doctrine” can be justified in the name of diversity".

[/QUOTE]

 

[benhur]

Basically you are saying that Jesus’ prayer for unity has no value…that division and separation is tolerable.

No, I am not basically saying that. It is not either or. Fact is the church was quite “tolerable” of differing views even doctrines on minor matters for a long time. Fact is there is no unanimous consent of early fathers on all things. There is a place when one must say , "they are the Lord’s, as I am.That is between him and the Lord ( to eat meat or not, or to observe this feast or not). I think the early church applied that at times because the main thing is that they profess Christ as their Lord and Savior, and that is a big deal, above all others things. Christianity is a relationship(s), more than a religion. Of course it would be nice to be 100% unified on all things. Of course the Lord strives toward that in us. You have to be careful on how you define division and separation also. It is also obvious the Lord tolerates much about us, individually and corporately, just as in OT. It is our idealism that is sometimes tolerated by His wisdom.

" For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized". 1 Corinthians 11:18–20
And how were those who were genuine to be recognized?
Factions and divisions are not the fruit of the Spirit, but the fruit of the enemy. There is no room for “differing opinions” in the Church Jesus founded (at least where doctrine is concerned)

Actually this helps my point(s). Though resignedly, he says there will be factions and in God’s toleration the real mccoy will be seen of us and the Lord,. Not sure Paul here is talking of doctrinal problems but certainly schisms as between rich and poor, spiritual and carnal and maybe even saved and not saved (genuine). Genuiness is not recognized by factions or lack of them. The factions really are a testing to see if one is indeed rooted in good soil ( for doctrine, attitude, perseverance). As Augustine said, " “In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity.”

This is a modern fabrication to justify division. Jesus promised unity to His Church, and that He would send His Spirit to lead them into “all Truth”. Once we embrace error we will walk through the gates of hell, as you yourself have observed, disciplines and practices are based upon doctrine.

Disagree. He prayed for unity but did not promise it the way you mean or define it. It is idealistic to think He inistituted a homogenized, sterile church even unhistoric. It is kind of wrong to say your take on this or that doctrine must be wrong for to believe it you separate from us who believe in it differently. A doctrine is either right or wrong based on it’s own merit.

I do believe and pray for this also, but we are not helping by pretending that unity should not exist.

Unity does exist so no one is pretending that it should not. We should not pretend that disunity is not being used for justification reasons when it is a thing to discern on just who has left truth over any given stumbling block

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The Church has the duty to retain what has been passed down to us from the Apostles. We are not at liberty to change the doctrines of the faith and justify that “differences of doctrine” can be justified in the name of diversity".]

The Church has many duties. Augustine says the Church does have some liberties, and I believe exercises them today, not in the name of diversity, but in the name of reality and wisdom and love. Some liberties. And the doctrines of faith, have you noticed how much more defined we are today than say, the early christians , persecuted christians, who had a more simple but profound and genuine creed ? The one poster you may have read recently said the reformation stiffened us all (less liberty) where P’s did not want to seem like C’s and C’s did not want to do anything resembling P’s, both doing things or not doing things they may not have done otherwise.

 

[guanophore]

Fact is the church was quite “tolerable” of differing views even doctrines on minor matters for a long time.

Does this sound “tolerable” to you?

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine1 Timothy 1:3

Or this?

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15

Fact is there is no unanimous consent of early fathers on all things.

One of the fallacies about tolerating heterodoxy is the fallacy of "minor matters’ or another word that is used is “essentials”. I say this is a fallacy because anyone and everyone then gets to decide what is minor, and what is not. The early fathers were all Catholic.

There is a place when one must say , "they are the Lord’s, as I am.That is between him and the Lord ( to eat meat or not, or to observe this feast or not). I think the early church applied that at times because the main thing is that they profess Christ as their Lord and Savior, and that is a big deal, above all others things.

Yes, disciplines and practices can be changed, and vary from region to region, but doctrine does not. You make a good point. How does one decide what it means to profess Christ as Lord and Savior? Could a person who denied him to save themselves from martyrdom be considered a disciple? If a person does not eat His Body and drink His Blood will they still have life within them?

Christianity is a relationship(s), more than a religion. Of course it would be nice to be 100% unified on all things.

“nice”? really?

2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Philippians 2:2–3

3 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes 1 Timothy 6:3–4

You have to be careful on how you define division and separation also.

It is not really up to us to define it at all. It is defined by Christ, and enumerated by the Apostles, and those who succeeded them in office.

It is also obvious the Lord tolerates much about us, individually and corporately, just as in OT. It is our idealism that is sometimes tolerated by His wisdom.

I hope you are not justifying the wounds to unity by claiming that God can put up with us.

Actually this helps my point(s). Though resignedly, he says there will be factions and in God’s toleration the real mccoy will be seen of us and the Lord,. Not sure Paul here is talking of doctrinal problems but certainly schisms as between rich and poor, spiritual and carnal and maybe even saved and not saved (genuine). Genuiness is not recognized by factions or lack of them. The factions really are a testing to see if one is indeed rooted in good soil ( for doctrine, attitude, perseverance). As Augustine said, " “In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity.”

Augustine’s understanding of what constitutes “essentials” is very different than the views today. And this clarifies my point. Who gets to decide what is essential?

Disagree. He prayed for unity but did not promise it the way you mean or define it. It is idealistic to think He inistituted a homogenized, sterile church even unhistoric.

LOL. I find myself amazed that you would conceptualize Jesus’ idea of unity as “sterile, homogonized and unhistoric”. No, the modern notion of “doctrinal distinctives” and “diversity” is just a way of setting aside Jesus’ desire that we be in unity. There is ONE FAITH, and the doctrines of the faith were deposited ONCE FOR ALL to the Church. Since that time, people have taken it upon themselves to design new doctrines, and to ignore the apostolic command to unity and obedience to the Bishops.

It is kind of wrong to say your take on this or that doctrine must be wrong for to believe it you separate from us who believe in it differently. A doctrine is either right or wrong based on it’s own merit.

True, my “take” is irrelevant. The only “take” that is relevant is what was committed to the Church by Christ. Is baptism regenerative? Can women be ordained? Can homosexuals be married? You are right on. Believing differently than what was taught by the Apostles does cause separation. It is a condition that is against the commandment of Jesus.

. We should not pretend that disunity is not being used for justification reasons when it is a thing to discern on just who has left truth over any given stumbling block

I am not following you here.

 

[Porknpie]

Oh, yes, I’m studying more, and discovering more, and becoming more in love with my own faith daily,of course, as I’ve done for most of my life ( converted from Methodist at 7), and I have read the Lutheran Confessions, etc., and even been through a class on the Book of Concord taught by her pastor, and am reading several books. I have gone to those classes and Bible classes because I also attend services with her ( no communion, of course) every weekend ( when I’m not sick ( minor seizures, etc.), and my own Catholic Masses ( when I’m not having seizures). One thing for certain that I’ve learned from attending Lutheran services and Bible, Confessions classes, is that it actually make me appreciate my own Catholic faith that much more, and is further confirmation that it is the only church which is of the “Truth”.
I did forget to add another important thing, that never to call Lutherans " Protestant", as there is a distinction because Luther sought to reform the Church, not start a new one. And that’s another topic that I learned on which not to tread.
I recently obtained for her an original 1534 Luther Bible leaf, actually printed during his lifetime, under his auspices, which also has a woodcut by Cranach the Elder, Luther’s friend and Bible engraver. She got me a rosary for my birthday, so it evens out.

Welcome Rasoleil -

LCMS make great converts Rasoleil as so many of them have been grounded well in the love of Christ and the Gospel. Sounds like your wife is of the same. Many of them do, at least in my extended family’s experience, have numerous false understandings of the Catholic faith (that Catholic’s worship Mary and hold to a strict works based salvation as examples).

What’s keeping your wife from becoming Catholic?

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

**And we are back to square one…
**
We both know that there is no Book, Chapter and Verse(s) that give us a list of what to consider Scripture. Being that the case only a Divine Source can determine what consist of Scriptures.

I was thinking the same.

**Square One
**
Anyway, we are back to square one…as pretty normal here on CAF.

Jesus created the Church on earth and promised to lead it to all truth.

That is why we can trust the Catholic Church - in determining that there were 73 books in the bible including 27 NT writings (determined out of several hundred). The Church proclaimed what was scripture over and over, first at the Council of Rome in 382, then later at the Synods of Hippo and Carthage. Then later still at the Council’s of Florence and Trent. That is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

Such a contradiction here of the Holy Spirit’s promise to lead the Church to all Truth, that the Catholic Church:

• Was led in truth by the Holy Spirit in determining the NT canon.
• Was led in error by the Holy Spirit in determining the OT canon.

 

[benhur]

Does this sound “tolerable” to you?
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine1 Timothy 1:3
Or this?
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15

Pretty solid to stick to his taught doctrines. How many did he teach ? Could one eat meats offered to an idol and another not ? Should a priest marry or not ? Did he teach Mary was to be honored ? Because she was sinless at inception ? Because she was assumed?

One of the fallacies about tolerating heterodoxy is the fallacy of "minor matters’ or another word that is used is “essentials”. I say this is a fallacy because anyone and everyone then gets to decide what is minor, and what is not. The early fathers were all Catholic.

it is not a question of doctrinal orthodoxy, as you say they were all “Catholics”. It is a matter of doctrinalizing what is necessary and tolerating and allowing dialogue on things not yet ascertained or not meant to be set in stone. Again, liberty. The fathers had more liberty because they were Catholic and could sound protestant for they did not as yet exist in a major form.

Yes, disciplines and practices can be changed, and vary from region to region, but doctrine does not. You make a good point. How does one decide what it means to profess Christ as Lord and Savior? Could a person who denied him to save themselves from martyrdom be considered a disciple? If a person does not eat His Body and drink His Blood will they still have life within them?

The former question was I thought was handled with some friction and not ideal unified action , yet all were catholic. The latter is a much later question , though I am not sure when real presence debate was framed that way.

“nice”? really?
2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Philippians 2:2–3

So all Catholics are 100% unified on all things ? You have the mind of Christ 100% on all things ?

3 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes 1 Timothy 6:3–4

Not touching this one with a ten foot pole for I have been guilty of all, though I believe he has converted me on the first part.

It is not really up to us to define it at all. It is defined by Christ, and enumerated by the Apostles, and those who succeeded them in office.

Still, some could say they all have left us with a "mess’ as far as unity.

I hope you are not justifying the wounds to unity by claiming that God can put up with us.

Maybe, but also some wounds are unnecessary, and if not , unnecessary not to apply God’s gracious salve.

Augustine’s understanding of what constitutes “essentials” is very different than the views today. And this clarifies my point. Who gets to decide what is essential?

The church decides what is essential in CC, and as you say, it is very different today than “yesterday”. (which was my point).

LOL. I find myself amazed that you would conceptualize Jesus’ idea of unity as “sterile, homogonized and unhistoric”.

What I wrote was that the church was not homogenized and sterile, (the good was mixed in with the bad)

No, the modern notion of “doctrinal distinctives” and “diversity” is just a way of setting aside Jesus’ desire that we be in unity. There is ONE FAITH, and the doctrines of the faith were deposited ONCE FOR ALL to the Church.

Was Vat. 2 too modern in the lumen gentia, I think, where it says there is grace and salvation in these other churches, even though it is understood there are doctrinal differences not to mention diversity ?

True, my “take” is irrelevant. The only “take” that is relevant is what was committed to the Church by Christ. Is baptism regenerative? Can women be ordained? Can homosexuals be married? You are right on. Believing differently than what was taught by the Apostles does cause separation. It is a condition that is against the commandment of Jesus.

Most (churches) try to discern just what they (apostles) taught.

 

[guanophore]

Pretty solid to stick to his taught doctrines. How many did he teach ?

ALL of them, of course. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20** teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you**; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” Matthew 28:19–20

Could one eat meats offered to an idol and another not ? Should a priest marry or not ?

These are not doctrines, they are disciplines. I am sure they used them if they were beneficial to the flock.

Did he teach Mary was to be honored ? Because she was sinless at inception ? Because she was assumed?

No, we can’t know this is the case, as she may have still been alive. The faithful were taught to honor Mary as Jesus’ mother because He is our role model, and He followed all of the commandments, honoring his mother and father. Mary was twice blessed, first because she heard the word of God and followed it, and second because she bore Him in her womb.

it is not a question of doctrinal orthodoxy, as you say they were all "Catholics". It is a matter of doctrinalizing what is necessary and tolerating and allowing dialogue on things not yet ascertained or not meant to be set in stone.

Doctrinalizing? Doctrine is that which is received from the Apostles. After the Apostles, some elements of the faith had to be dogmatized to prevent heresy. Some of these dogmas include the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and the NT canon.

The body that gets to decide what is set in stone are the successors of the Apostles. They carry the authority Christ gave to the Church. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19–20

Jesus never gave power to the flock to decide what needed to be ascertained in the future or what needed to be set in stone.

 Again, liberty. The fathers had more liberty because they were Catholic and could sound protestant for they did not as yet exist in a major form.

The Fathers only sound “Protestant” when people take what they wrote out of context. The One Faith existed in “major form” when Jesus committed it to the Apostles.

The latter  is a much later question , though I am  not sure when real presence debate was framed that way.

I can assure you it was already that way by 107 AD. A letter by Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, written in AD 106 says: “I desire the bread of GOD, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ.”

Writing to the Christians of Smyrna, in about AD 106, Saint Ignatius warned them to “stand aloof from such heretics”, because, among other reasons, “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

Those who did not accept the real presence were considered heretics.

So all Catholics are 100% unified on all things ? You have the mind of Christ 100% on all things ?

No, there is One Faith, one Catholic teaching. Those who reject the One Faith suffer wounds to unity. Many of them have become Protestants and don’t realize it. Some are poorly catechized, and some are apostate or in outright rebellion. Truth is not defined by those who depart from it, and those who reject the One Faith are not in good standing in the Church.

Not touching this one with a ten foot pole for I have been guilty of all, though I believe he has converted me on the first part.

My point is that there has always been an expectation that the disciples will accept and embrace the One Faith. They are not at liberty to pick and choose.

Still, some could say they all have left us with a "mess’ as far as unity.

No, ,the Apostles did not leave us with the mess of disunity in which we find our selves. There is only One Faith. Unity exists in adherence to the Truth. To the extent that we depart from Truth, unity suffers.

 The church decides what is essential in CC, and as you say, it is very different today than "yesterday". (which was my point).

No, Ben. The doctrines of the faith have never changed. I think you are confusing disciplines with doctrines.

What I wrote was that the church was not homogenized and sterile, (the good was mixed in with the bad) Was Vat. 2 too modern in the lumen gentia, I think, where it says there is grace and salvation in these other churches, even though it is understood there are doctrinal differences not to mention diversity ?

Unity of faith is fruitful, because Jesus compared it to the unity within the Trinity, which is fruitful. To say that adherence to the One Faith makes the Church “sterile” is a disgusting rejection of the Apostolic faith.

No, Vatican 2 was not too "modern’ Lumen Gentium. the HS does work through these ecclesial communities, despite the fact that they embrace heresies.

Most (churches) try to discern just what they (apostles) taught.

Yes, I agree, and they do so with all sincerity. They also often do this in a vaccuum, disregarding what the HS has already revealed to the Church…

 

[Cube2]

We all do it the same.

How is one different than another:

1. “I researched scripture, and history, and prayed and came to the conclusion that X Protestant denomination is the correct one.”
2. “I researched scripture and history, and prayed and came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the correct one.”

Its not so much about denominations, but about who Christ is in that ‘church’.
The book of Revelation was sent to 7 churches in Asia. If these were a representation of the denominations, then Christ would look at each one of them individually, saying you have done well on this, but on this part you need to change.
Likewise, Apostle Paul wrote to Churches in Philippi, in Corinth, in Galatia, In Rome etc.
These were denominations as they were called by different names and had their own issues that Paul addressed.
Th most important aspect is who is Christ to them, and how they remained true to the faith in Jesus.
When Christ will come for the church, he’ll not come for a specific denomination. Consider the parable of the 10 virgins, 5 were ready while 5 were not ready. The church is not holistic but individualistic, the one who will be upright will go with the Lord while the one who will not be ready will be left out.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

The church is not holistic but individualistic…

Source?

 

[Jon_S_1]

ALL of them, of course. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20** teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you**; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” Matthew 28:19–20

These are not doctrines, they are disciplines. I am sure they used them if they were beneficial to the flock.

No, we can’t know this is the case, as she may have still been alive. The faithful were taught to honor Mary as Jesus’ mother because He is our role model, and He followed all of the commandments, honoring his mother and father. Mary was twice blessed, first because she heard the word of God and followed it, and second because she bore Him in her womb.

Doctrinalizing? Doctrine is that which is received from the Apostles. After the Apostles, some elements of the faith had to be dogmatized to prevent heresy. Some of these dogmas include the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and the NT canon.

The body that gets to decide what is set in stone are the successors of the Apostles. They carry the authority Christ gave to the Church. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19–20

Jesus never gave power to the flock to decide what needed to be ascertained in the future or what needed to be set in stone.

The Fathers only sound “Protestant” when people take what they wrote out of context. The One Faith existed in “major form” when Jesus committed it to the Apostles.

I can assure you it was already that way by 107 AD. A letter by Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, written in AD 106 says: “I desire the bread of GOD, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ.”

Writing to the Christians of Smyrna, in about AD 106, Saint Ignatius warned them to “stand aloof from such heretics”, because, among other reasons, “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

Those who did not accept the real presence were considered heretics.

No, there is One Faith, one Catholic teaching. Those who reject the One Faith suffer wounds to unity. Many of them have become Protestants and don’t realize it. Some are poorly catechized, and some are apostate or in outright rebellion. Truth is not defined by those who depart from it, and those who reject the One Faith are not in good standing in the Church.

My point is that there has always been an expectation that the disciples will accept and embrace the One Faith. They are not at liberty to pick and choose.

No, ,the Apostles did not leave us with the mess of disunity in which we find our selves. There is only One Faith. Unity exists in adherence to the Truth. To the extent that we depart from Truth, unity suffers.

No, Ben. The doctrines of the faith have never changed. I think you are confusing disciplines with doctrines.

Unity of faith is fruitful, because Jesus compared it to the unity within the Trinity, which is fruitful. To say that adherence to the One Faith makes the Church “sterile” is a disgusting rejection of the Apostolic faith.

No, Vatican 2 was not too "modern’ Lumen Gentium. the HS does work through these ecclesial communities, despite the fact that they embrace heresies.

Yes, I agree, and they do so with all sincerity. They also often do this in a vaccuum, disregarding what the HS has already revealed to the Church…

I want the clear cut, sure, cohesive faith described over and over by Guanaphore.

Ben Hur. Take a step back and look at how your defense brings about a laizefaire, uncertain, inconclusive, disorganized, mess. A faith where anything goes however one wants.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Its not so much about denominations, but about who Christ is in that ‘church’.
The book of Revelation was sent to 7 churches in Asia. If these were a representation of the denominations, then Christ would look at each one of them individually, saying you have done well on this, but on this part you need to change.
Likewise, Apostle Paul wrote to Churches in Philippi, in Corinth, in Galatia, In Rome etc.
These were denominations as they were called by different names and had their own issues that Paul addressed.
Th most important aspect is who is Christ to them, and how they remained true to the faith in Jesus.
When Christ will come for the church, he’ll not come for a specific denomination. Consider the parable of the 10 virgins, 5 were ready while 5 were not ready. The church is not holistic but individualistic, the one who will be upright will go with the Lord while the one who will not be ready will be left out.

That sounds nice…how on earth do you determine who is “upright”?
Your opinion?

The Mormons will hold they are…

Every church will hold they are and defend their teaching…

So your own tradition, may be a heresy and not upright. How could you possibly know !?

 

[pablope]

Maybe, but also some wounds are unnecessary, and if not , unnecessary not to apply God’s gracious salve.

The church decides what is essential in CC, and as you say, it is very different today than “yesterday”. (which was my point).

Most (churches) try to discern just what they (apostles) taught.

Well, Benhur…how would those churches without their own magisterial authority determine the between opinion and what the Apostles actually taught?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Still, some could say they all have left us with a "mess’ as far as unity.

Who is “they”? The Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit?

Sounds like you’re shifting blame to God for the sins of men. Tell me that isn’t so.

As for the rest, I don’t have time to address it and Guanophore did a pretty decent job of answering.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for participating in the thread, Cube2

Its not so much about denominations, but about who Christ is in that 'church'.

That;s just the point, though, Cube2. The Church was defined by where the Apostles were. The Apostles appointed bishops to succeed them, and taught them that the Church is found in unity with them. This is why we have Ignatius writing in the year 107 that Jesus and His One Church is found where the Bishop is.

• “Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, and they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ].” -Epistle to the Philippians Chapter III 107 AD

“In like manner let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the Apostles.” -Epistle to the Trallians Chapter III 107AD

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” -Epistle to the Smyrenaens Chapter VIII 107AD

So yes, it is all about who Christ is, and He set things up with this structure so that everyone would have clarity about where He is.

The book of Revelation was sent to 7 churches in Asia. If these were a representation of the denominations, then Christ would look at each one of them individually, saying you have done well on this, but on this part you need to change.
Likewise, Apostle Paul wrote to Churches in Philippi, in Corinth, in Galatia, In Rome etc.
These were denominations as they were called by different names and had their own issues that Paul addressed.

No, Cube2, these churches are all local parishes of the one universal Church. All held the one Catholic faith. To denominate means to take one’s name from. Denominations are defined by which part, and how much of Catholic doctrine they reject. What Jesus confronted these churches about were behaviors, not doctrines.

Th most important aspect is who is Christ to them, and how they remained true to the faith in Jesus.

Yes. Jesus entrusted His Church to the Apostles, and those who remain true to faith in Jesus are in unity with the apostles, and their successors, the Bishops.

When Christ will come for the church, he’ll not come for a specific denomination.

This is quite true, since there will be some in all the denominations that will be saved through invincible ignorance.

Consider the parable of the 10 virgins, 5 were ready while 5 were not ready. The church is not holistic but individualistic, the one who will be upright will go with the Lord while the one who will not be ready will be left out.

It is not an either/or, Cube2, but a both/and. The Church IS holistic as well as individual. We are members of a Body, and He will come for His Bride, which we are collectively as a whole.*

 

[benhur]

No, there is One Faith, one Catholic teaching. Those who reject the One Faith suffer wounds to unity

I was speaking of Catholics being 100% unified on all things. You questioned my saying that it would be nice if we all were. I think you said “No”, to the question of Catholics being 100% unified.

No, ,the Apostles did not leave us with the mess of disunity in which we find our selves.

Not the apostles but their successors over a two milennia period.

No, Ben. The doctrines of the faith have never changed. I think you are confusing disciplines with doctrines.

Partly, partly not. Limbo was never a fully taught doctrine. The Assumption has been a tradition/doctrine for along time, and early on held by some and rejected by others. Augustine was free to believe it or not . Mother Theresa was not . She had to believe it as part on the One Faith. Evolving is still change,especially to those Catholics who once rejected it.

Unity of faith is fruitful, because Jesus compared it to the unity within the Trinity, which is fruitful. To say that adherence to the One Faith makes the Church “sterile” is a disgusting rejection of the Apostolic faith.

Good thing I never said that. I was comparing idealism to reality. Doctrines indeed were taught and set. Tradition however, takes time to develop/evolve. They may for a time be in a state of flux, which is not homgenous, free from defects (sterile).

No, Vatican 2 was not too "modern’ Lumen Gentium. the HS does work through these ecclesial communities, despite the fact that they embrace heresies.

Good, so the HS does work in unhomogenized, even non-sterile enviroments.

Yes, I agree, and they do so with all sincerity. They also often do this in a vaccuum, disregarding what the HS has already revealed to the Church.

. Thank you .Some would say established historical churches may be in a vacuum, like looking at and accepting a budget’s bottom line only, while others are free to analyze line by line and the lines specific history.

 

[benhur]

Well, Benhur…how would those churches without their own magisterial authority determine the between opinion and what the Apostles actually taught?

Is discernment always founded on authority ?

 

[pablope]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Well, Benhur…how would those churches without their own magisterial authority determine the between opinion and what the Apostles actually taught?

Is discernment always founded on authority ?

How would you know what to discern properly and sift out opinion without magisterial authority?

Or is the individual the magisterial authority himself?

And what is discernment? Is discernment acceptance of the teaching of the magisterial authority?

 

[Porknpie]

Is discernment always founded on authority ?

Seems to me…

Wisdom and Understanding as gifts of the Holy Spirit enable discernment. As such,discernment would be founded by the these gifts and directly by the Holy Spirit.

As Christ promised to guide his Church to all Truth, he gives the Church Wisdom and Understanding in abundance to teach infallibly on faith and morals.

These gifts also allowed the Church to discern infallibly the Canon of Scripture.

 

[Rasoleil]

Welcome Rasoleil -

LCMS make great converts Rasoleil as so many of them have been grounded well in the love of Christ and the Gospel. Sounds like your wife is of the same. Many of them do, at least in my extended family’s experience, have numerous false understandings of the Catholic faith (that Catholic’s worship Mary and hold to a strict works based salvation as examples).

What’s keeping your wife from becoming Catholic?

PnP

She had been Catholic all of her life. She converted to Lutheranism in 2006. Sorry if I hadn’t all that clear in my explanation.

 

[benhur]

How would you know what to discern properly and sift out opinion without magisterial authority?

Or is the individual the magisterial authority himself?

And what is discernment? Is discernment acceptance of the teaching of the magisterial authority?

How did a fisherman discern who this renegade rabbi that he was following really was ? Did he go along with the established authority, the teachers even ?
How does anyone know Truth, be it an individual or a corporate body ? And what is any corporate body made up of, even a magisterium, individuals ? How do you sift out which teaching authority has discerned properly ? Discernment is not acceptance but more wisdom and perception in what to accept and not.