The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[nerfherder]

Yes, it certainly would. Christ’s promise to our first Pope was that “the gates of Hell shall never prevail.”

Yes, but Christ’s promise might not have prevented the Church, as a result of its downward spiral, from becoming a modest denomination in the universal Christian church. It was perhaps a close call. That is conjecture, but worth thinking about.

Luther’s attempts to destroy the Church were not what “saved it from itself” as so many Protestants like to think.

Luther by no means attempted to destroy the RCC, and in fact tried to save it from inside. It is now recognised by some canon lawyers, inter alia, that if the Pope/Vatican had dealt with his concerns, there would have been no schism. Do you think that as a good Catholic, a concerned Catholic, Luther wanted to pull his Church apart? Did he not love his Church, the RCC, in the same way you do? Did he not love it enough to sacrifice his attachment to the Church for the sake of Christians who were not in communion with the RCC?

I think it is not necessary to be as defensive or paranoid in our responses about this period in RCC history. I am an historian; facts are facts, as they are recorded and interpreted in authoritative history books. Something bad happened; the Church in effect sinned; as a result of various events and changes of mind, it reformed itself - that is what the reformation is all about.

Keep in mind, one of the reasons the Pope was distracted from his duties of guiding the Church in right faith and morals (which is the excuse given for the Protestant rebellion) was that there were Muslims coming in from the South, trying to destroy the Church in Spain and in Italy. They, too, did not succeed. What with Lutherans coming and burning all from the North, and Muslims coming in and burning all from the South, it is indeed a miracle of God that we are still here. Bigger than ever.

Yes, it is a miracle that the Church still stands, if all that slashing and burning was going on. I find it hard to think of Luther as some Visigoth arrived from the north wielding a great sword on horseback, leading packs of illiterate, hairy, stinking northerners bent on destruction. Jews and Muslims in the south slashing and burning? Luther was doing his thing in the north - talking to the Church about reform which was clearly needed in the minds of many at that time, even from within the Church - and the RCC was doing the Spanish Inquisition in the south. Level pegging?

I think you are trying too hard here. I think you stuck in the phrase about the ‘excuse given for the Protestant rebellion’ - which does not refer to any excuse or reason in the previous phrase - because it is a knee-jerk or automatic reaction to any form of criticism of a dysfunctional Church during this period. Is it because we fear that somehow this would detract from the claim of the Church to its supremacy as the mother church, the Church founded by Christ, the only church?

And yes, I do believe that without dissent from without and within the Church - which is going on all the time up to the present day, whether we know it or not - we might have found our Church did not survive as we would have liked it to. And I do believe that Luther and the other great men of the protestant tradition made their contribution to the stabilisation and growth of RCC. And I think it time we not be so defensive about it and learn what actually happened.

All great religions, all truly great denominations, change and grow in stature - or they die.

Jabulani

 

[nerfherder]

Would Lutheranism exist if not for the “RCC”?

Can you explain what you mean here? I’m not sure I understand.

If you mean ‘would it have been established’, then I understand you to mean it would *not *have been established except for the dysfunction of the RCC during this period. Because the Church was in crisis, the reformed churches, including those that are Lutheran, rose in the vacuum. Luther would much have preferred to remain within his RCC, but could in all conscience not do so and thus set off the reformation within RCC.

If you mean ‘would it have continued to exist up to the present time’, then you might like to comment.

Blessings

Jabulani

 

[nerfherder]

We certainly know that everyone and anyone can speak on the subject of faith and morals, and do so! However, only the Magesterium has the authority, given by Christ, to speak on His behalf on those faith and morals.

Guan,
You simply cannot continue to rely, through millennia, on the arcane argument that Christ gave his Church to Peter and the apostles. Too much has happened down the centuries, in terms of experience, religious scholarship, scholarship of other kinds, new knowledge and understanding and faith.

You are treading on dangerous and divisive ground when you insist on dragging out one, single, not always inherently persuasive argument for the authority of the RCC.

I think you are going to have to do a lot better than this. It is not enough for a lot of us within and without the Catholic paradigm. I sense that there is a rebellion fomenting on this one. Not good enough any more.

Blessings

Jabulani

 

[guanophore]

Luther by no means attempted to destroy the RCC, and in fact tried to save it from inside. It is now recognised by some canon lawyers, inter alia, that if the Pope/Vatican had dealt with his concerns, there would have been no schism. Do you think that as a good Catholic, a concerned Catholic, Luther wanted to pull his Church apart? Did he not love his Church, the RCC, in the same way you do? Did he not love it enough to sacrifice his attachment to the Church for the sake of Christians who were not in communion with the RCC?

I do think that Luther did not want to leave. I don’t know if he loved the RCC. At the time, I think he had a hard time recognizing the church as something that God intended it to be. In his view, it seems, the departures from what he was reading in scripture did not invoke his affection. I think he had a rebellious heart, though, and in his indignance, acted in a manner that separated himself, rather than joining. I did not used to think this until I studied the lives of Catholic saints of the time, and previous who felt the same as Luther, but handled their wounds differently.

 I think it is not necessary to be as defensive or paranoid in our responses about this period in RCC history. I am an historian; facts are facts, as they are recorded and interpreted in authoritative history books. Something bad happened; the Church in effect sinned; as a result of various events and changes of mind, it reformed itself - that is what the reformation is all about.

Then you know that the history is very different depending upon one’s perception of it! I agree that it is not helpful to be paranoid and defensive, and many are. The problem I see with your framing of the reformation is where you say that “the church sinned”. If this is true, then Christ abandoned the Church, and did not keep his promise(was faithless) to preserve her from error. I think it would be more correct to say that many individuals were in sin, so many (like during the Arian period) that profligacy was rampant. I do agree that the Roman Church lost Europe because she failed to keep her priests in holy discipline. One of those priests was Luther. Looking back, perhaps one can say that, if Rome had responded differently to Luther, there would have been no schism/heresy. However, there was so much heretical behavior in the clerics all over Europe at the time that it is impossible to pin this all on Luther.

reaction to any form of criticism of a dysfunctional Church during this period. Is it because we fear that somehow this would detract from the claim of the Church to its supremacy as the mother church, the Church founded by Christ, the only church?

Personally, I dislike the term “supremacy”. To me it seems contrary to the teachings of Christ, to told us to be the servant of all. I don’t like it used about the church or the office of Peter. Be that as it may, the teaching of Christ is that there is one baptism, one church, one founder. Therefore, all who are members of His body are, in some measure, members of His church (however separated they may be). If we say that His body is dysfunctional, it is more of an insult to Him, His inability to preserve it in holiness. No, God will not violate our free will if we choose to sin, as many of the European clergy were doing. however, that does not nullify His promise to preserve the bride in purity. Both things are true.

 And yes, I do believe that without dissent from without and within the Church - which is going on all the time up to the present day, whether we know it or not - we might have found our Church did not survive as we would have liked it to. And I do believe that Luther and the other great men of the protestant tradition made their contribution to the stabilisation and growth of RCC.

I think it might be more accurate to say that the church grows best when under persectution, whether that is from within, or without. Luther did not just dissent, he persecuted.

 

[nerfherder]

SEMANTICS

The problem I see with your framing of the reformation is where you say that “the church sinned”. If this is true, then Christ abandoned the Church, and did not keep his promise(was faithless) to preserve her from error. I think it would be more correct to say that many individuals were in sin, so many (like during the Arian period) that profligacy was rampant…Looking back, perhaps one can say that, if Rome had responded differently to Luther, there would have been no schism/heresy. However, there was so much heretical behavior in the clerics all over Europe at the time that it is impossible to pin this all on Luther.

I agree - it is the point of view. The Church sinned can mean RCC sinned, or it can mean the collective body of men and women who comprised the Church were in sin. The latter is correct, from your point of view - and mine - I think.

It is indeed impossible to pin it all on Luther, and if I could get my memory to work better, I would be able to run off a list (although that was done on another thread, when someone went looking for ‘those guys’ who set up reformed churches). I have got the book, and I shall read, again.

Personally, I dislike the term “supremacy”. To me it seems contrary to the teachings of Christ, to told us to be the servant of all. I don’t like it used about the church or the office of Peter.

Yes, Church is servant, no doubt. But in the minds of many Catholics, as I understand them, there is a belief that the RCC is supreme among Christian churches, or even that other Christian churches do not, should not, cannot exist; that the RCC is the only fount of Truth and infallible Teaching; that Christianity is Catholicism. This is what I meant by supremacy, and I find this assumption unsettling.

Therefore, all who are members of His body are, in some measure, members of His church (however separated they may be)

Do you mean members of the Catholic Church or members of the catholic (universal Christian) church?

I think it might be more accurate to say that the church grows best when under persectution, whether that is from within, or without. Luther did not just dissent, he persecuted.

Like slashing and burning, cutting off heads, etc? Or what? What is persecution as an add-on to dissent here?

 

[nerfherder]

Guan, you forgot to reply to the best part of the question. You said:

Originally Posted by guanophore
However, only the Magesterium has the authority, given by Christ, to speak on His behalf on those faith and morals.

I said:

You simply cannot continue to rely, through millennia, on the arcane argument that Christ gave his Church to Peter and the apostles. Too much has happened down the centuries, in terms of experience, religious scholarship, scholarship of other kinds, new knowledge and understanding and faith.

You are treading on dangerous and divisive ground when you insist on dragging out one, single, not always inherently persuasive argument for the authority of the RCC.

I think you are going to have to do a lot better than this. It is not enough for a lot of us within and without the Catholic paradigm. I sense that there is a rebellion fomenting on this one. Not good enough any more.

Where do we stand?

Jabulani

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Yes, it certainly would. Christ’s promise to our first Pope was that “the gates of Hell shall never prevail.”

Finish the phrase please, “prevail against it.” What is “it”? It is a pronoun refering to “church”.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

. What word modifies “church”? Is it the word “Catholic”? No, it is not. It is the word “my”. This church that Jesus founds on Peter is Jesus’ church, not the Catholic Church. You may think they are the same. You may have been taught they they are the same for more than 1000 years. But that does not make it so. And to say that it is true because the Catholic Church says it is true is the epitome of a circular argument.

But I think scripture helps us. This church belongs to Jesus, to Christ. Paul talks about the Church as the body of Christ. You say that this is a physical body manifest in the organization of the Catholic Church. But the Orthodox have just as much claim to this as do the Catholics. So, is Christ’s body divided? Scripture tells us that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. So, since the Catholic Church you referenced has experienced schism and is divided into Catholic and Orthodox, then it cannot be the Church that Jesus reference that will prevail against even the gates of Hell, for you have interpreted that to mean it has no end, and clearly it must if it is divided or scripture itself is wrong for it says that no divided kingdom can stand.

But you are only stuck with this interpretation if you insist on the “Church” Jesus refers to being the “Catholic Church”. You object to the idea of the Church that Paul speaks of as the body of Christ being a metaphor for all Christians of ever persuasion and denomination. Yet, that works perfectly with this verse. Though they find themselves composed of many different members, they are all still part of the one body. Though there are many denominations, there is still one Christ and all belong to him, even if not to each other. The foot may never be an eye or an ear, and a Methodist may never be a Catholic or Orthodox, but each is still a member of the body of Christ. And no one part is less a member than another. It is after all a metaphor and can be applied to both the local congregation (which I think was its original intent) and to all of Christendom as a whole.

Whatever you think of Paul’s “body of Christ”, it is clear that Jesus’ “church” from Matthew 16, belongs to Jesus, not to some future institution. All who belong to Jesus belong to it. As the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of all Christians, then it recognizes that all Christians belong to Christ. If all Christians belong to Christ, then they are part of his Church, even if not part of the Catholic Church. So this assembly of all who belong to Christ is what the gates of Hell cannot prevail against. No mention is made of the Catholic Church at all. We shall just have to pray for its continuous existence as a subset within the Church which belongs to Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Luther by no means attempted to destroy the RCC, and in fact tried to save it from inside.

If this were the case, then he would have become a Saint like St. Ignatius of Loyola and the other Saints of that era, who in fact did that.

It is now recognised by some canon lawyers, inter alia, that if the Pope/Vatican had dealt with his concerns, there would have been no schism. Do you think that as a good Catholic, a concerned Catholic, Luther wanted to pull his Church apart? Did he not love his Church, the RCC, in the same way you do? Did he not love it enough to sacrifice his attachment to the Church for the sake of Christians who were not in communion with the RCC?

He was invited to attend the Council of Trent. They waited many months for him to come and tell them what he thought they should do. They gave him three safe-conducts.

He never showed up.

What more were they supposed to do?

When we read the writings of St. Teresa and of the others, we read about the Protestants (Lutherans and Calvinists) burning down Northern Europe. The destruction is still there, today. (I think a lot of modern people simply assume that the destruction occurred during World War II, but when you look closely at the graffitti, you see that it was done by the early Protestants.)

I have been to St. Andrew’s Cathedral just outside of Dundee. (There is also a golf course in the grounds of the Cathedral that you may have heard of.)

They have never bothered to repair the damage that occurred there, or erased any of the graffitti - it is still there for all to read. It shows that they knew exactly what they were doing when they rejected the Apostolic authority of the Pope (since one of the things they did was destroy the figures of the Apostles that had been in the Cathedral) and the tone of the graffitti shows that they had no intentions of “reforming the Church from the inside” - their intent was to destroy the Church; not to reform it.

 

[jmcrae]

Finish the phrase please, “prevail against it.” What is “it”? It is a pronoun refering to “church”. . What word modifies “church”? Is it the word “Catholic”? No, it is not. It is the word “my”. This church that Jesus founds on Peter is Jesus’ church, not the Catholic Church. You may think they are the same. You may have been taught they they are the same for more than 1000 years. But that does not make it so. And to say that it is true because the Catholic Church says it is true is the epitome of a circular argument.

Well, let’s take a look at what history tells us. Of all the churches on earth, which one claims St. Peter the Apostle for its first chief shepherd?

Another question to ask yourself is,*** Why does only one Church out of [how many?], make this claim? ***

But I think scripture helps us. This church belongs to Jesus, to Christ. Paul talks about the Church as the body of Christ. You say that this is a physical body manifest in the organization of the Catholic Church. But the Orthodox have just as much claim to this as do the Catholics.

The Orthodox also reject the primacy of Peter. They retain the Sacraments of the Church because they have had the good sense to retain the Succession from the Apostles, but they are not in union with it. (Protestants also retain some Sacraments, notably Baptism and Marriage, because these two Sacraments don’t require ordained clergy to perform them - anyone, including an Atheist, who intends to do what the Church does as best he understands it, can baptize, and any two Baptized people can be sacramentally married, as long as one is a woman and the other is a man, and as long as they intend to remain married for their whole lives, for the purpose of providing a home where children will be raised.)

You object to the idea of the Church that Paul speaks of as the body of Christ being a metaphor for all Christians of ever persuasion and denomination.

Yes, because “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” (John 14:21)

Protestants and Orthodox both reject various aspects of Christian authority.

It is after all a metaphor and can be applied to both the local congregation (which I think was its original intent) and to all of Christendom as a whole.

Since he includes the Apostles and the Bishops in his list, it seems clear that he is referring to the Church Universal, and not to a local congregation. (Also he says “presbyters” - a local congregation would typically only have one “presbyter,” aka a priest.)

Whatever you think of Paul’s “body of Christ”, it is clear that Jesus’ “church” from Matthew 16, belongs to Jesus, not to some future institution.

The institution of the Church was already present. It is Jesus who ordained the Apostles to the Catholic priesthood, and gave them the ability to confect the Eucharist at Mass, and also to hear Confessions and absolve sinners from their sins. These rituals were not “invented” at some later time - it is Christ who instituted them during the period of His ministry here on earth.

All who belong to Jesus belong to it. As the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of all Christians, then it recognizes that all Christians belong to Christ. If all Christians belong to Christ, then they are part of his Church, even if not part of the Catholic Church.

Yes, they have a partial relationship to the Church because of their baptism.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Well, let’s take a look at what history tells us. Of all the churches on earth, which one claims St. Peter the Apostle for its first chief shepherd?

Another question to ask yourself is,*** Why does only one Church out of [how many?], make this claim? ***

I see that you do recognize other groups as churches. From other things that you have written, I wasn’t sure that you would. So we are making progress.

Now why does only one church of the many churches make the claim for exclusivity that the Catholic Church does? Probably because the others have a better understanding of the nature of the Church than does the one.

The Orthodox also reject the primacy of Peter. They retain the Sacraments of the Church because they have had the good sense to retain the Succession from the Apostles, but they are not in union with it.

I was speaking of the Catholic Church’s concept of the Church being only a physical body, and that it is not an invisible body of all Christians. If it is a physical body, the Orthodox have as much right to claim this presence in their organization as do the Catholics. And the Catholics should grant it. This would make for Christ’s physical body to be divided, for it is in schism. But Christ is not divided. Because in truth, when talking about the Church as the body of Christ, Paul is not talking about the same thing that the Catholic Church is talking about. Thus if one is forced to understand the Church as the body of Christ in either the understanding used by Paul or the understanding used by the Catholic Church, I will go with what Paul spoke about. I would rather teach contrary to the Catholic Church on this matter and be labeled a heretic, than to teach contrary to the scriptures.

Yes, because “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” (John 14:21)

And what commands are these that Jesus speaks of? He just told his disciples what it was:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

You say: “Protestants and Orthodox both reject various aspects of Christian authority.” I hardly think so. I see no one here accept for a few (and not even all) Catholics who are unwilling to love another who belongs to Christ. In another thread, another poster shared this touching story:

Just a thought but maybe as followers of the one true God we should live out Jesus’ word “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35) i have seen first hand what this loves does to people outside the faith. when i was in The Czech Republic last year on a missions trip a Czech girl came up to my pastor and said that she could feel the love we had for one another and she accepted Christ into her life and is growing strong in her faith. if this is what fifteen highschool students can do how much more could the whole faith combined do? And how many people are turned away from Christ because of our constant fight that has been going on since the reformation?

We can begin living right now as brothers and sisters of one another. We don’t need a council of bishops to make it so. We only need to quit telling another that this Christian is a “better” Christian than another because he/she is of the “preferred” church. We are all the Church, and even as we belong to many different churches and communions we are all still one Church. That Church is what Jesus referred to when he said to Peter, I will found “my church”. It is the metaphorical body of Christ Paul spoke of, for we all belong to one Lord and have one baptism in Christ. That is what makes us one, not doctrine, but the person of Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit that lives in each one of us individually. The rest of it, the stuff that divides us, is just the nonsense and the invention of men.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Kind of like this example:

I did not say you stole the money.

I did not say you stole the money.

I did not say **you **stole the money.

I did not say you stole the money.

I did not say you stole the money.

Putting emphasis on the red word gives a different meaning to the whole sentence… How do we know which is correct? We ask the author. Same with Scripture.

And who is the author of all scripture? Is it not the Holy Spirit? So, we ask the Holy Spirit for the answer, and not any middlemen.

What if the author, say St John, cannot tell us directly what his words mean in John 6? We can ask the one(s) he taught directly… like Ignatius for example. And what if he is no longer with us? We ask the one(s) he taught. And so on and so on.

Only the Catholic Church has a credible succession of teaching authority to walk us through the Scriptures… the Scriptures of the NT eventually were put to paper under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But this only happened to the human authors of the NT…all members of the first, the original, the only Church Jesus founded upon this Rock, Peter.

You may have some things right… but you could not possibly have the confidence of the Catholic Church Teaching of 2000 years.

What you describe sounds like a game of telephone to me. And now that you have explained it so well that way, I think I better understand why the Catholic Church has some of the teachings that it does.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

originally posted by guanophore
Therefore, all who are members of His body are, in some measure, members of His church (however separated they may be)

For myself, whenever I speak of “His Church” I refering to the catholic (universal Chrsitian) Church – using small “c” for catholic. And when using the terminology this way, I am in complete argreement with guanophore’s statement (at least the non-parenthetical part). In terms of separation, there is separation. If we are all part of one catholic Church, then each individual church, denomination, communion, or fellowship must bear some of the responsibility for this. It takes two to fight. It also takes two to separate. If we are separated one from another, then there is enough blame to go around for all to repent. We cannot return to any one particular church. We must all of us, including the Catholic Church, return to the one true catholic (universal Christian) Church which is found in Christ alone and not identified with any particular subset of the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

I see that you do recognize other groups as churches. From other things that you have written, I wasn’t sure that you would. So we are making progress.

Now why does only one church of the many churches make the claim for exclusivity that the Catholic Church does? Probably because the others have a better understanding of the nature of the Church than does the one.

Well, if any of those others were old enough to be the Church that Christ founded, you might have a point. But the earliest ones were established in 1050 AD, more than a thousand years after Christ told Peter, “Thou art Rock, and upon this Peter I shall establish my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

I was speaking of the Catholic Church’s concept of the Church being only a physical body, and that it is not an invisible body of all Christians. If it is a physical body, the Orthodox have as much right to claim this presence in their organization as do the Catholics.

I don’t see how. They, too, rely on the “invisible faery” theory of Christ having no tangible body. There are, after all, several distinctly separate Orthodox churches that can’t all be right about the same things at the same time, since their Patriarchs disagree with one another on what might be considered essential issues of doctrine.

Thus if one is forced to understand the Church as the body of Christ in either the understanding used by Paul or the understanding used by the Catholic Church, I will go with what Paul spoke about. I would rather teach contrary to the Catholic Church on this matter and be labeled a heretic, than to teach contrary to the scriptures.

I don’t see where Paul is saying anything different than what the Catholic Church says. The Church is both visible (the institution of hte Apostles and Bishops etc., that Paul actually mentions in his list, there) and invisible - everyone who is following Christ to the best of his or her ability.

And what commands are these that Jesus speaks of? He just told his disciples what it was:

Jesus did not abolish the Law; He fulfilled it. This means that all of His commandments still stand.

He didn’t abolish His earlier commandments when He told us to love God and one another. Rather, He was telling us what the purpose of all those other commandments is - which is to give us the ability to love one another, and to love God.

For example, God’s (Christ’s) laws against birth control, abortion, and infant exposure still stand. The purpose of the laws against birth control, etc. is not to oppress anybody, but rather, to multiply love in the world. So, when trying to figure out why we should avoid these things, we ask ourselves, “How do I improve in my love of God and humanity, if I were to follow this law?” Rather than automatically assuming that anything that happens to be inconvenient to me at some particular moment in time cannot have come from God (because, obviously, I am the centre of the known universe, and God exists solely to cater to me, and He would be most “unloving” to demand anything of me that I might find difficult ).

That is what makes us one, not doctrine, but the person of Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit that lives in each one of us individually. The rest of it, the stuff that divides us, is just the nonsense and the invention of men.

If we aren’t “one” in doctrine (among other things), then how can we be “one” in any sense at all? If we don’t even agree on the meanings of words, then how are we “of one mind”?

The Person of Christ certainly makes us one, but if we don’t agree on who Christ is (which we learn through doctrine) then how are we even of the same religion?

If, for example, someone denies that Mary is the Mother of God, and someone else insists on this title for her, then we are, in effect, worshipping two entirely different Christs, since we disagree on the very nature of His Incarnation - one worships a divine being who had the outward appearance of a human being (which as I understand it is what a great many Protestants believe in), and the other worships a Christ who has both a human nature and a divine nature (the Catholic Christ, as it were).

 

[MrS]

And who is the author of all scripture? Is it not the Holy Spirit? So, we ask the Holy Spirit for the answer, and not any middlemen.

What you describe sounds like a game of telephone to me. And now that you have explained it so well that way, I think I better understand why the Catholic Church has some of the teachings that it does.

Amen… the Holy Spirit will not work to divide us!!

So… when your faith receives its answer, say on contraception, or on infant baptism… and your protestant minister brother’s faith gives him a different answer, the conclusion is:

[1] at least one of you is wrong
[2] your answer(s) is not of the Holy Spirit (He will not divide)
[3] you have ignored Jesus’ plan that the Holy Spirit would guide you (speaking only to the 12, the early magisterium of the only Church) into all Truth.

And my example was not meant to be a game to the open mind. It was meant to express the very real need for something other than our private interpretation…

Actually your chances of guessing the correct meaning in the example given are much greater than getting it all right on the doctrinal issues of the single Church Christ founded on Peter.

Is that really a “game” you want to play… you have but one soul to save - your own.

Playing the game is playing with the souls of those you teach… with no authority.

 

[MrS]

And who is the author of all scripture? Is it not the Holy Spirit? So, we ask the Holy Spirit for the answer, and not any middlemen.

.

God makes the plans.

It is He who chooses the “middlemen” in the procreation of life. He could do it all alone, but He chooses “middlemen and women”

It is He who chooses us to use our free will to accept Him. We must cooperate as “middlemen” in our walk with the Lord toward eternity in Heaven.

It is He, the Son of the Most High, who chose “middlemen”, the Apostles, to be Voice till His return… and more explicitly, Peter, to be His Prime Minister, and then Peter’s designatd successors, holders of the Keys to the Kingdom, until His return.

It is He, the Holy Spirit, who was the Divine Author, who chose “middlemen”, to be the human authors of Scripture.

It is He, the Holy Spirit, who used “middlemen” the Early Church Fathers, and Councils to declare for both you and I, what of the early writings were inerrant, and inspired.

And It is He, The Trinity whom we worship, Who guides only one Church, full of sinners and fallible men… a Church that cannot be torn apart from within (those heretics are always present)… and a Church that certainly will not be torn apart from without by the countless protesters and their followers.

There is but one Church… all others are at best faith communities missing the fullness of the Truth

.

 

[jmcrae]

And who is the author of all scripture? Is it not the Holy Spirit? So, we ask the Holy Spirit for the answer, and not any middlemen.

And when we disagree, by what marks do we know which of us (if either) is hearing the Holy Spirit, and which of us is being deceived by the Devil?

What you describe sounds like a game of telephone to me.

If so, then the Catholic Church plays the most unique game of “Telephone” ever, since instead of whispering into one person’s ear, she stands up on the chair and shouts to whoever will listen, and instead of expecting people to remember the message in their heads, she draws pictures, makes sculptures, sings easily remembered songs, recites and repeats lists and formulas over and over and over again, and writes copious letters, encyclicals, and history books to explain the poetry, the lists, the songs, the pictures, and the sculptures.

If we want to go back and find out what the early Church believed, it’s really easy to do this, because we even translate everything into the local languages, or else into Latin, which is the world’s easiest language to learn.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Well, if any of those others were old enough to be the Church that Christ founded, you might have a point. But the earliest ones were established in 1050 AD, more than a thousand years after Christ told Peter, “Thou art Rock, and upon this Peter I shall establish my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

I don’t see how. They, too, rely on the “invisible faery” theory of Christ having no tangible body. There are, after all, several distinctly separate Orthodox churches that can’t all be right about the same things at the same time, since their Patriarchs disagree with one another on what might be considered essential issues of doctrine.

I don’t see where Paul is saying anything different than what the Catholic Church says. The Church is both visible (the institution of hte Apostles and Bishops etc., that Paul actually mentions in his list, there) and invisible - everyone who is following Christ to the best of his or her ability.

Jesus did not abolish the Law; He fulfilled it. This means that all of His commandments still stand.

He didn’t abolish His earlier commandments when He told us to love God and one another. Rather, He was telling us what the purpose of all those other commandments is - which is to give us the ability to love one another, and to love God.

For example, God’s (Christ’s) laws against birth control, abortion, and infant exposure still stand. The purpose of the laws against birth control, etc. is not to oppress anybody, but rather, to multiply love in the world. So, when trying to figure out why we should avoid these things, we ask ourselves, “How do I improve in my love of God and humanity, if I were to follow this law?” Rather than automatically assuming that anything that happens to be inconvenient to me at some particular moment in time cannot have come from God (because, obviously, I am the centre of the known universe, and God exists solely to cater to me, and He would be most “unloving” to demand anything of me that I might find difficult ).

If we aren’t “one” in doctrine (among other things), then how can we be “one” in any sense at all? If we don’t even agree on the meanings of words, then how are we “of one mind”?

The Person of Christ certainly makes us one, but if we don’t agree on who Christ is (which we learn through doctrine) then how are we even of the same religion?

If, for example, someone denies that Mary is the Mother of God, and someone else insists on this title for her, then we are, in effect, worshipping two entirely different Christs, since we disagree on the very nature of His Incarnation - one worships a divine being who had the outward appearance of a human being (which as I understand it is what a great many Protestants believe in), and the other worships a Christ who has both a human nature and a divine nature (the Catholic Christ, as it were).

Based on the whole of your post, and particularly your concluding example, have you considered the possibility that you might yourself worshipping a very different Christ than he who spoke to Peter?

And as a point of information, I don’t think you know as much as you think you do about Protestantism either. Though there are many differeing views on many subjects, every protestant that I know personally understands Christ to have two natures being both 100% God and 100% man in the one person without these natures being confused. My lay people would be largely unfamiliar with the Council of Chalcedon or the phrase hypostatic union, but they know from scripture as true the ideas that were restated in the creed there.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Amen… the Holy Spirit will not work to divide us!!

So… when your faith receives its answer, say on contraception, or on infant baptism… and your protestant minister brother’s faith gives him a different answer, the conclusion is:

[1] at least one of you is wrong
[2] your answer(s) is not of the Holy Spirit (He will not divide)
[3] you have ignored Jesus’ plan that the Holy Spirit would guide you (speaking only to the 12, the early magisterium of the only Church) into all Truth.

And my example was not meant to be a game to the open mind. It was meant to express the very real need for something other than our private interpretation…

Actually your chances of guessing the correct meaning in the example given are much greater than getting it all right on the doctrinal issues of the single Church Christ founded on Peter.

Is that really a “game” you want to play… you have but one soul to save - your own.

Playing the game is playing with the souls of those you teach… with no authority.

When we reach differing answers on a spiritual matter, if it pertains to issues of salvation, then we believe that at least one of us has misunderstood the leading of the Holy Spirit. When it is not pertinent to the issue of salvation, for instance should a church be set up with a representational or congregational form of governance, then we allow that perhaps the Holy Spirit is actually directing different people in different ways.

I need to correct you on one point, we do have authority – authority given to the Church (all believers not just the 12) by Christ through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

We agree on two of your points:

(1) God makes the plans.

(2) There is but one Church… all others are at best faith communities missing the fullness of the Truth
.

Of course, I submit to you that the Catholic Church, just like every other church with a human steering it today, is at best a faith community, and all equally so within the Church which is of Jesus Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Based on the whole of your post, and particularly your concluding example, have you considered the possibility that you might yourself worshipping a very different Christ than he who spoke to Peter?

It took me 17 years to become Catholic, and yes, that was certainly a consideration, since it was apparent almost from the very beginning of my investigations that the Catholic Christ, and the God that I was worshipping in the United Church of Canada didn’t have very much in common with each other - and I was naturally predisposed to assume that the God I had been raised to believe in in my Protestant church was the “real” one.

And as a point of information, I don’t think you know as much as you think you do about Protestantism either.

Probably not. It is a very confusing religion. The more I learn about it, the more confusing it gets. I was much more sure of Protestantism when I was Protestant, and thought that all Protestants believed what I believed - and any that didn’t just hadn’t been to the right schools.

Though there are many differeing views on many subjects, every protestant that I know personally understands Christ to have two natures being both 100% God and 100% man in the one person without these natures being confused.

And yet, one sees them so often denying the actual motherhood of Mary. They say that she was “merely a vessel,” and other things of that kind.

Do they not understand that Christ gets His human nature from Mary?

My lay people would be largely unfamiliar with the Council of Chalcedon or the phrase hypostatic union, but they know from scripture as true the ideas that were restated in the creed there.

It’s not always so obvious that many Protestants “get” this.

I’m sure I didn’t, when I was Protestant. In fact, I don’t think it’s a subject I ever even thought about very coherently.

I don’t think I was even really aware that Christ was the God of the Old Testament, since I used to think of “the God of the Old Testament” and “Christ” as though they were opposites - certainly, it never occurred to me that they were the same person. While still holding to monotheism - which shows how thoroughly confused I was. (Although I think I may have been under the impression that the Old Testament was a human idea of God, and that God never actually revealed Himself until the time of Christ. I obviously didn’t think that one through to its conclusion, either, if so. )