B
BA11
Guest
We’re all to be one in Christ. Where’s the problem?
- Status
C
concretecamper
Guest
@BA11: Please do not derail the OP request with you argumentative comments. You can do that on another thread.
God bless.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
God bless.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
B
BA11
Guest
That is very unusual. Baptism is very big in most evangelical circles and we recognize it is demanded of us by Christ. A pastor who doesnt encourage baptism of believers is unusual.
And I agree about there being a body of believers, but our relationship with Christ is very individualistic IMO.
R
rcwitness
Guest
He seems to be respecting the conversation to me, but your point is taken by me
. But the OP should be the one to tell us what is derailing the thread, no?Perhaps he was teaching unusually. But that is the nature of, and a big part of the problem with, individualism.
J
JRKH
Guest
Welcome…
You have grasped something that is often missed by so many. The great depth and relevance of the teachings of the Church - as personified by our recent Holy Fathers, JP II, Benedict XVI and now Francis.
Another poster has already referenced the Catechism and this should give you a good idea of how we view the inspiration of Scripture
As to authority - the fundamental difference between the RC and the Evangelical view would be this…
The Catholic Church follows a model described and demonstrated in Scripture…It is primarily a councilior model and is described in Mt 18:15-18 and demonstrated in Acts 15…In Mt 18 we see Jesus clearly tell us to take problems to the Church and to listen to the Church…for she has the authority to bind and loose. In Acts we see this idea played out - between distant churches - in the Council of Jerusalem.
Additionally we see Paul describe the Church (not Scripture) as the “Foundation and Bulwark” of Truth…and I Ephesians 3: 18-10 we read, “that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”
In addition to this there are multiple exhortations in the NT to unity, to being of one mind - of avoiding dissension etc…
So - in matters of authority…The Catholic Church is far more biblical than the evangelical protestants…
Not sure what you mean by “uncertainty”…Catholic theology sees suffering, not as uncertain but, as inevitable. However, suffering has advantages. It can build up ones spiritual strengths. Paul speaks to this in his letters. He embraces his sufferings. Therefore, while suffering may not be something we should chase after…it is not something to be avoided either.
As to the problem of evil…Yes there are deep doctrines and teachings related to this. but it all really boils down to this. Evil exists…fight it…avoid it…remain focused on God.
I know that is probably not very helpful…and I am sorry for that.
Not being from an evangelical background I am perhaps not familiar with how that tradition views this problem.
Perhaps you could clarify a bit…
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Welcome…
You have grasped something that is often missed by so many. The great depth and relevance of the teachings of the Church - as personified by our recent Holy Fathers, JP II, Benedict XVI and now Francis.
Another poster has already referenced the Catechism and this should give you a good idea of how we view the inspiration of Scripture
As to authority - the fundamental difference between the RC and the Evangelical view would be this…
The Catholic Church follows a model described and demonstrated in Scripture…It is primarily a councilior model and is described in Mt 18:15-18 and demonstrated in Acts 15…In Mt 18 we see Jesus clearly tell us to take problems to the Church and to listen to the Church…for she has the authority to bind and loose. In Acts we see this idea played out - between distant churches - in the Council of Jerusalem.
Additionally we see Paul describe the Church (not Scripture) as the “Foundation and Bulwark” of Truth…and I Ephesians 3: 18-10 we read, “that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”
In addition to this there are multiple exhortations in the NT to unity, to being of one mind - of avoiding dissension etc…
So - in matters of authority…The Catholic Church is far more biblical than the evangelical protestants…
Not sure what you mean by “uncertainty”…Catholic theology sees suffering, not as uncertain but, as inevitable. However, suffering has advantages. It can build up ones spiritual strengths. Paul speaks to this in his letters. He embraces his sufferings. Therefore, while suffering may not be something we should chase after…it is not something to be avoided either.
As to the problem of evil…Yes there are deep doctrines and teachings related to this. but it all really boils down to this. Evil exists…fight it…avoid it…remain focused on God.
I know that is probably not very helpful…and I am sorry for that.
Not being from an evangelical background I am perhaps not familiar with how that tradition views this problem.
Perhaps you could clarify a bit…
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Welcome…
You have grasped something that is often missed by so many. The great depth and relevance of the teachings of the Church - as personified by our recent Holy Fathers, JP II, Benedict XVI and now Francis.
Another poster has already referenced the Catechism and this should give you a good idea of how we view the inspiration of Scripture
As to authority - the fundamental difference between the RC and the Evangelical view would be this…
The Catholic Church follows a model described and demonstrated in Scripture…It is primarily a councilior model and is described in Mt 18:15-18 and demonstrated in Acts 15…In Mt 18 we see Jesus clearly tell us to take problems to the Church and to listen to the Church…for she has the authority to bind and loose. In Acts we see this idea played out - between distant churches - in the Council of Jerusalem.
Additionally we see Paul describe the Church (not Scripture) as the “Foundation and Bulwark” of Truth…and I Ephesians 3: 18-10 we read, “that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”
In addition to this there are multiple exhortations in the NT to unity, to being of one mind - of avoiding dissension etc…
So - in matters of authority…The Catholic Church is far more biblical than the evangelical protestants…
Not sure what you mean by “uncertainty”…Catholic theology sees suffering, not as uncertain but, as inevitable. However, suffering has advantages. It can build up ones spiritual strengths. Paul speaks to this in his letters. He embraces his sufferings. Therefore, while suffering may not be something we should chase after…it is not something to be avoided either.
As to the problem of evil…Yes there are deep doctrines and teachings related to this. but it all really boils down to this. Evil exists…fight it…avoid it…remain focused on God.
I know that is probably not very helpful…and I am sorry for that.
Not being from an evangelical background I am perhaps not familiar with how that tradition views this problem.
Perhaps you could clarify a bit…
Peace
James
B
BA11
Guest
No, I do not. First of all, the catholic church doesnt have a monopoly on the word “catholic”. The catholic church means the universal church, not necessarily the modern roman catholic church. Second, the idea that there were no other christians is historically false. For instance, it is estimated by some there were as many lollards as catholics in England in the 14th century. The hussites were significant in eastern Europe. Other significant splits and objectors included the cathars, the waldensians, the bogomils , etc. Many smaller splits occurred earlier in history but all were crushed so quickly there is little known about them other than names. The catholic church excommunicated or killed tens of thousands of heretics in the centuries leading up to the reformation.
The claim that there wre no significant non-catholic groups until the reformation is a claim rooted in an ignorance of European history. Many members of the above groups who managed to survive joined the protestant reformation. The problem is revisionist history tries to label the above groups catholic heretics instead of catholics who objected and seperated from the church. Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that thousands and thousands of European christian didnt consider themselves members of the RCC.
J
just_came_back
Guest
But we’re NOT one in Christ. How can you not see that?!
J
just_came_back
Guest
Huss, Waldenses, etc = heretics who were not preaching Gospel truth
P
pablope
Guest
M
MariaG
Guest
Welcome!
You have received some good answers of a more intellectual bent along with some great resource. I would like to say something abou scripture.
As a technical revert but more of a convert from fundamentalist evangelical roots, scripture is near and dear to my heart. I have said and still say today that if there is even one teaching of the Catholic church that contradicts scripture, I would leave it immediately.
In my walk to the Catholic church, I did not study church fathers, or any other resource except the catechism of the Catholic Church and my bible. ( I have since studied the early church father)
I have found that each belief of the Catholic Church has scripture that is referenced. I won’t say based on, because of the understanding the Church has about the role of the living breathing Church and inspired scripture but frankly I COULD!!
I still remember the day that I had stepped out in faith even though I hadn’t “found” everything in the Bible about Catholic teaching. I was about confession. I was reading the bible John 20:20-23. And it was so amazing. I asked God if it was really that simple? From Christ Himself?
One of my favorite places in scripture is in Genesis when God breathes on man and he receives a soul. Then here in the new testament, Christ breathes on man and gives us the means to heal the soul!!
Anyway, you may decide you don’t agree with the interpretation that we have of scripture but do not doubt scripture can be shown!
You have received some good answers of a more intellectual bent along with some great resource. I would like to say something abou scripture.
As a technical revert but more of a convert from fundamentalist evangelical roots, scripture is near and dear to my heart. I have said and still say today that if there is even one teaching of the Catholic church that contradicts scripture, I would leave it immediately.
In my walk to the Catholic church, I did not study church fathers, or any other resource except the catechism of the Catholic Church and my bible. ( I have since studied the early church father)
I have found that each belief of the Catholic Church has scripture that is referenced. I won’t say based on, because of the understanding the Church has about the role of the living breathing Church and inspired scripture but frankly I COULD!!
I still remember the day that I had stepped out in faith even though I hadn’t “found” everything in the Bible about Catholic teaching. I was about confession. I was reading the bible John 20:20-23. And it was so amazing. I asked God if it was really that simple? From Christ Himself?
One of my favorite places in scripture is in Genesis when God breathes on man and he receives a soul. Then here in the new testament, Christ breathes on man and gives us the means to heal the soul!!
Anyway, you may decide you don’t agree with the interpretation that we have of scripture but do not doubt scripture can be shown!
S
snarflemike
Guest
Hi and welcome.
On the question of scripture, I think the Catholic view is like when you write down a note to yourself about something. You look at the note to remind yourself of the thing, not to discover the thing. Catholicism looks to scripture to find confirmation of its teachings (of the deposit of faith it has received and handed down). Catholicism does not look to scripture to discover doctrine - the doctrine was already there at the beginning.
Regarding the uncertainty question, I think you’ll find, in the most general terms, the Eastern churches (Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic rites) are the most comfortable with uncertainty, followed by Western Catholicism (Latin rite), followed by Protestantism. There may be some connection between the time Protestantism arose, and the developing intellectual tradition of those times, where the scientific revolution seemed to suggest that every question could eventually be answered. But I’m just musing on all of that.
One thing you will hear a lot in Catholicism is “it’s both/and, not either/or”. Catholicism is comfortable with God’s plan having many layers, so one can say many true things about a given subject without one true statement disproving other true statements. I have seen in discussions with Protestants over and over where they assume some aspect of the faith must either be A or B, when Catholicism teaches that it can be both A and B.
On the question of scripture, I think the Catholic view is like when you write down a note to yourself about something. You look at the note to remind yourself of the thing, not to discover the thing. Catholicism looks to scripture to find confirmation of its teachings (of the deposit of faith it has received and handed down). Catholicism does not look to scripture to discover doctrine - the doctrine was already there at the beginning.
Regarding the uncertainty question, I think you’ll find, in the most general terms, the Eastern churches (Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic rites) are the most comfortable with uncertainty, followed by Western Catholicism (Latin rite), followed by Protestantism. There may be some connection between the time Protestantism arose, and the developing intellectual tradition of those times, where the scientific revolution seemed to suggest that every question could eventually be answered. But I’m just musing on all of that.
One thing you will hear a lot in Catholicism is “it’s both/and, not either/or”. Catholicism is comfortable with God’s plan having many layers, so one can say many true things about a given subject without one true statement disproving other true statements. I have seen in discussions with Protestants over and over where they assume some aspect of the faith must either be A or B, when Catholicism teaches that it can be both A and B.
P
Philthy
Guest
I have a decent sense of what you are talking about - you will not have the same problem in Catholicism. You may run into lots of other problems, but intellectual depth and rigor will not be one of them.
Good!
Have you read the encyclical Dei Verbum yet? If not, do so soon - I think you will find it intellectually and spiritually exhilarating. The question you ask is fairly deep and breaks off into many tangents. You can find it here:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
(2) How/why are Catholics seemingly more comfortable with uncertainty (e.g. in regard to suffering and “the problem of evil” – is there a history/doctrine/philosophy behind this?
Why are Catholics more comfortable with uncertainty? Because it is entirely consistent with Catholic theology - and it is intellectually more honest. Everything has not been revealed to us. There are things regarding God that we simply have not been shown, and even if we were shown them we could not truly grasp them. The Trinity is a perfect example. Our life on earth, for example, is - in a certain sense - also a mystery. Why, exactly, God has put us here and allows us to live in this imperfect state of knowledge seeking Him while being drawn by temptation…
It is what it is, and what it is is mysterious. And so the intellectually honest person recognizes that while we can have perfect confidence in certain things - God’s love, for example - that surety is not something that limits what we will experience in life. It does not limit our chance of experiencing suffering and so we are “comfortable” with the idea that it may be God’s Will - for reasons that we simply don’t know - that we experience suffering in this life. We trust that God loves us and is bringing about good from the suffering and that - along with grace - is enough. Here is one of my favorite prayers that touches upon this issue:
Eternal God in whom Mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, look kindly upon us and increase your Mercy in us that in difficult moments we might not despair or become despondent, but with great confidence submit ourselves to your Holy Will which is love and mercy itself.
R
RollTide1987
Guest
Jesus said there is truth (singular), not truths (plural). If there is only one truth, and if there are 40,000 different interpretations of that truth, then how can we all be one in Christ?
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Let’s see what the first few generations of Christians had to say. They’re probably good at interpreting what the Apostles said to them, right?
Ignatius of Antioch (Bishop of Antioch from 67AD, martyred in 107AD):
All from the Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Magnesians
That seems like a pretty unified vision of the Church, right? Ignatius is the one who first used the term ‘catholic’. Based on his vision of all the congregation obeying the bishop and presbyters as though they were Christ seems to mean a literal, unified Church. This would have been especially true to Ignatius because of the rampant threat of Gnosticism, which divided much of the Church.
Irenaeus later writes that the Church must remain one in its proclamation of faith, and that the only way to know whether an individual church is part of this one Church is by its adherence to the tradition of the Apostles. He also declares that the Church is the only way to effectively resolve disputes, and point to the Roman church as the measure by which all other churches are to be considered Apostolic because all other churches must agree with her:
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
If you read the earliest Christian writers after the New Testament (or even some writings that occured at literally the same time, like the Didache), there is none of the Christianity that you proclaim. In fact, even in the New Testament your brand was non-existent. For example, the Apostles felt it necessary to meet and declare a doctrine on the matter of Judaising, which was the first heresy. The same thing has happened for two-thousand years as new heresies or controversies arise.
When Christ said He was the Truth, and that the Holy Spirit would be with us till the end, and that He wished us all to be one even as He is in the Father and the Father in Him, He really, truly meant that He wanted a unified Church. It makes absolutely no sense that Christians would be led in a thousand different directions, and no one would have the ability to do what the Apostles taught us to do so long ago: have the elders meet and voice there opinions, and come to a unified conclusion.
G
Goya
Guest
First, I object to your suggestion that the Catholic Church killed tens of thousands of heretics–that is historically false. Most of those killings to which you refer, were not carried out by the Catholic Church, but by civil authorities–who happened to be Catholic. This protestant myth (or black legend) is most evident with the inquisitions. The inquisitions were established as a means of affording due process to the accused, in order to prevent civil authorities from executing heretics without due process, an opportunity to speak, or the like.
Second, what you call ‘churches’, were in fact, heretical groups. There have been heretical movements since the inception of Christianity–folks who figured they knew better what Christ meant, than the actual Church, that He actually founded–the Catholic Church.
Third–while the Latin Rite (Roman) Catholic Church may not have a monopoly on the word ‘catholic’, she is the only Church with a legitimate claim to such titular. No other church enjoys the universality of the Roman Catholic Church. None even comes close. Go to most any country on the planet; find a Catholic Church–and you will have just about the same experience there, as in any other Catholic Church anywhere. No protestant denomination can even come close to making such a claim; no mulsim mosque…no jewish temple…none. Only the truly Catholic Church celebrates the sacramental mass in the same way, effecting the same rites, following the same sequence, and even the exact same readings (albeit in the vernacular of the host nation).
Finally, there is the small matter of apostolic succession. The Catholic Church traces her roots to the actual hand-picked Apostles of Christ Himself. Why Rome, as in ‘Roman Catholic Church’, you ask? Why because that is where St. Peter–the very same ‘Simon’ whom the Lord specifically named ‘Peter’ (Petros)–as in ‘…thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock, I will build my Church’–went to Rome to bring the Gospel–and where he established his bishopric–as it was the capital of the world, in Christ’s time, and for centuries afterwards. It is also no coincidence that St. Paul–the same St. Paul who authored more books of the NT than any other–also went to Rome, to assist St. Peter–and was martyred on the very same day as the said St. Peter (albeit by different manner–as he was beheaded, since he enjoyed Roman citizenship–while St. Peter was crucified–as our Lord–but upside down, since he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as our Lord and saviour).
The very same authority bestowed upon these Apostles by our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, has been passed on to this very day, down to each of their respective successors–just as Christ had done.
No protestant church can stake such a claim (which is why we call them ‘ecclesiatical communities’, and not ‘churches’).
M
MariaG
Guest
I always find it interesting in the people who insist that the Catholic Church doesn’t have the right to call herself JUST the Catholic Church.
We are the Catholic Church. One of our kids walks away from us and wants to still call them selves catholic so they rename us Roman Catholic to differentiate us.
We are the Catholic Church. Of which we have a Latin rite. Someone who does not belong to our Church, who walked away from our Church, has no right to rename our Church from Simply Catholic or meaning universal to a just ONE of the many rites contained within our Catholic Church to denote the entirety of our Church.
Unless a person is speaking specifically and only about the Latin rite in the Catholic Church, the name Roman Catholic is not the name of our Church.
Don’t change our name to justify the disunity your church caused to the body of Christ.
We are the Catholic Church. One of our kids walks away from us and wants to still call them selves catholic so they rename us Roman Catholic to differentiate us.
We are the Catholic Church. Of which we have a Latin rite. Someone who does not belong to our Church, who walked away from our Church, has no right to rename our Church from Simply Catholic or meaning universal to a just ONE of the many rites contained within our Catholic Church to denote the entirety of our Church.
Unless a person is speaking specifically and only about the Latin rite in the Catholic Church, the name Roman Catholic is not the name of our Church.
Don’t change our name to justify the disunity your church caused to the body of Christ.
G
Goya
Guest
To me, it’s more pathetic than annoying–it’s like some directional school, claiming to be ‘America’s Team.’ ‘Evangelical catholic’, ‘reformed catholic,’ blah blah blah…whatever. Identify yourself as ‘Catholic’, and folks will automatically figure you are in communion with the pope. Because ‘Catholic’ actually does have a meaning, beyond the definition of the word, translated from Greek. You pretty much have to go out of your way to say, '…well, gee, no, not really…not that kind of catholic…".
…and it also goes to show how great THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is–because everybody wants their church to be THE Catholic Church…
…yet, so many souls seemingly cannot abide by the requiste obedience, subservience, and humility, that Christ actually called for, of the members of the Church He actually founded. So many prideful souls, who are (apperently) saddled with authoirty issues–and so they seek to conform the world, and history, to suit their individual fancy.
Alas, for all their efforts…Catholic still means Catholic–and ‘catholic’, is still just a Greek word that requires some sort of qualifier, to distinguish it from Catholic (…and the Catholic Church is still America’s Team, and this protestant confession or that Reformer’s ecclesiatical community, is still just a directional school…)
R
RollTide1987
Guest
My best friend considers himself a non-denominational Christian who “only happens” to go to a Baptist church. Anyways…he does not believe in any type of authority figure in Christendom. He wants to seek a personal relationship with Jesus Christ without the use of a Church. I tried to tell him there is a difference between a “personal” relationship and an “individualistic” relationship with Jesus but I don’t think he understood.
I have yet to go full bore apologetic on him because I am still studying and preparing myself for the task but it does trouble me how he believes any average Joe can preach the Gospel, and that seminary or advanced theological study is not necessary to do so.
I have yet to go full bore apologetic on him because I am still studying and preparing myself for the task but it does trouble me how he believes any average Joe can preach the Gospel, and that seminary or advanced theological study is not necessary to do so.
- Status