The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[jmcrae]

did you mean to say that

All members of His Church are part of the Body of Christ
but
not all members of the Body of Christ are members of the Catholic Church

??

I’m not sure what he meant, either, but what I would say is that everyone who is a member of the Body of Christ has a relationship (however imperfect) with the Catholic Church.

For example, baptized persons who seek to join the Church are bound by certain laws that don’t apply to their unbaptized classmates in the Catechism classes that they go to. (The unbaptized are bound by different laws, because they, too, have a relationship with the Church that is of a different kind.)

 

[nerfherder]

Oh rats. I cannot bear this. You are all going on about little bits, vaguely and obfuscatorily (good word!). I am determined to get an answer because it matters. Is there no Roman Catholic out there who is willing to answer my question? You know that I have been through the mill on CAF re denominations, supremacy, transubstantiation, Magisterium. Now give a straight answer, please, please, please.

Guanophore said:

There is only One Church, One Lord, One faith, One baptism. There is no other Church except the one Christ founded. If any have established what they believe is such a thing, then it is counterfeit, and is not, in truth, part of the Body of Christ.

I am asking:

(1) One Church:
Is that the universal body of Christ (catholic church) or the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome (Catholic Church)?

(2) One Lord:
Is that Yaweh, the God worshipped by all Christians, or is that the Lord as defined and adored by the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

(3) One Faith:
Is that the Christian faith, interpreted variously by Christian denominations, or is that the Catholic Christian faith of which the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome is the principal keeper?

(4) One baptism
Is that the baptism of any Christian believer who follows the teachings of Christ, or is that the baptism and confirmation of believers into the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

I shall add

(5) The Scriptures
Are these the Christian books (never mind the number) that form the Bible which sets out the core of belief for all Christians, or are they the Scriptures belonging *only *to the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome.

Please no sophistry, just plain answers. There has to be a brave Catholic out there somewhere, to end all the poking and prodding at bits and pieces here and there.

Ever,

 

[MrS]

Oh rats. I cannot bear this. You are all going on about little bits, vaguely and obfuscatorily (good word!). I am determined to get an answer because it matters. Is there no Roman Catholic out there who is willing to answer my question? You know that I have been through the mill on CAF re denominations, supremacy, transubstantiation, Magisterium. Now give a straight answer, please, please, please.

Guanophore said:

I am asking:

(1) One Church:
Is that the universal body of Christ (catholic church) or the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome (Catholic Church)?

Yes
he “Roman” Catholic Church is the Catholic Church…Roman Rite.
The Church is *
[a] The Body of Christ… those who are baptized into that body… some remain in a state of grace , some wither and die off… some gravely sin and are out of a state of grace but return in true repentance. *
*** The visable, growing entity founded as ONE by Jesus Christ on Peter the Rock, His Vicar (representative or "prime minister re:Isaah if you will). This Church is perfect and without sin as it is Jesus Himself… whereas [a] is full of sinners.
[c] the Bride of Christ, the Spouse of the Lord.

And surely the Church {a} is Jesus Himself as the Head… per Paul’s conversion story in ACTS

(2) One Lord:
Is that Yaweh, the God worshipped by all Christians, or is that the Lord as defined and adored by the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

Lord, or Dominus, means Master. God is our master in that he created and owns us. How wonderful HE chooses to then give us the grace to become His brothers and sisters.
The Catholic Church has always affirmed that all worship belongs to the Triune God – only and alone. Some Catholics may not understand that word when they “admit” that they “worship” Mary or the saints. It is quite different to worship than to simply venerate.

So your or is quite misleading and shows a bit of misunderstanding of the Catholic Faith

(3) One Faith:
Is that the Christian faith, interpreted variously by Christian denominations, or is that the Catholic Christian faith of which the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome is the principal keeper?

The Deposit of Faith lies with the Apostles and their Successors as taught in so many places in the Scriptures. If your faith community, or another’s faith community believes something different that what The Catholic Church defines as Doctrine (not to be mistaken with practices or disciplines), then you are missing out.

(4) One baptism
Is that the baptism of any Christian believer who follows the teachings of Christ, or is that the baptism and confirmation of believers into the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

The One baptism is that as spoken of by the Lord to Nicodemus… born again of water and the spirit. It cannot be re-done. The Lord provides that grace, and He does not do it wrong the first time. The Great Commission further gives the “form” to accompany that baptism.

I shall add

(5) The Scriptures
Are these the Christian books (never mind the number) that form the Bible which sets out the core of belief for all Christians, or are they the Scriptures belonging *only *to the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome.

The Scripture human authors were most certainly all Catholic. There was no other form of authentic Christianity … and there still is not.

The Catholic Church was/is the vehicle for dispensing the written word to the world. The Bible is the Book of the Catholic Church. I guess we are the “original Bible Christians”

Today’s Bible Christian may belong to a “church of the Bible”… but that is of their own doing… and not of the Holy Spirit Who would not divide the One Church.

Please no sophistry, just plain answers. There has to be a brave Catholic out there somewhere, to end all the poking and prodding at bits and pieces here and there.

Ever,

 

[jmcrae]

I am asking:

(1) One Church:
Is that the universal body of Christ (catholic church) or the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome (Catholic Church)?

These are normally one and the same thing.

There are people who are “invisibly joined” to the Church. This being Christ’s Church, Christ having appointed Peter to be its chief shepherd, and Peter having appointed Linus, etc., on down to Pope Benedict XVI and beyond, for as long as there are human beings on the earth.

(2) One Lord:
Is that Yaweh, the God worshipped by all Christians, or is that the Lord as defined and adored by the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

Again, one and the same thing. Yahweh (I AM) is God the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(3) One Faith:
Is that the Christian faith, interpreted variously by Christian denominations, or is that the Catholic Christian faith of which the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome is the principal keeper?

That faith which was given by Christ to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to their successors, on down to the present-day Bishops of that Catholic Church that has its headquarters at the Vatican in Rome.

(4) One baptism
Is that the baptism of any Christian believer who follows the teachings of Christ, or is that the baptism and confirmation of believers into the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

All Trinitarian Baptism is Catholic Baptism. We don’t re-baptize converts.

(5) The Scriptures
Are these the Christian books (never mind the number) that form the Bible which sets out the core of belief for all Christians, or are they the Scriptures belonging *only *to the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome.

They are the same Scriptures that were discerned by the Bishops of the Catholic Church who attended the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo during the late 300s AD, whose findings were anticipated by Pope Damasus (Catholic Pope) and infallibly promulgated to the Catholic Church by Pope Innocent I (who was the Catholic Pope who took over from Pope Damasus, when he died).

Which, as it turns out, (minus a few books and verses here and there) are also used by every other organization that calls itself “Christian.”

 

[nerfherder]

Very many thanks - and, in anticipation, to any others who care to comment. There is much here to think about.

And there are of course further implications:

Did Christ found the Church of Rome - the Roman Catholic Church - or did he found the universal catholic church - the body of Christ?

Are all other major Christian denominations ‘counterfeit’, in your interpretation or opinion or according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome?

Am I to understand that having been cradled in the Christian church - Canadian Convention Baptist, mainstream, conservative, founded by dour Scots in Canada in the 1830s - and baptised (total immersion) at 12, having worked in Africa for forty years according to the examples and values taught by Christ and now contemplating conversion, I have been utterly misled? That I am not, and never have been a Christian? That I am not one of those who might, just might have a look-in at heaven (whatever)? That I am a counterfeit Christian, belonging to a counterfeit Church?

Are you truly saying that over 100 million Christians worldwide are in the same bag - counterfeit believers, not worthy to wash His feet?

 

[jmcrae]

Very many thanks - and, in anticipation, to any others who care to comment. There is much here to think about.

And there are of course further implications:

Did Christ found the Church of Rome - the Roman Catholic Church - or did he found the universal catholic church - the body of Christ?

The headquarters of the visible, organizational Church that Christ established is today found in the city of Rome, at the Vatican. Its Dioceses and parishes are found throughout the world, where ever there are human beings (and even in some places where there are not currently any human beings).

The sequence was, Christ gave the Church to → Peter and The Apostles who gave it to → The Early Church who gave it to → the modern-day Roman Catholic Church.

Are all other major Christian denominations ‘counterfeit’, in your interpretation or opinion or according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome?

As organizational entities, they were founded by human beings; not by God. (The RC Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the Second Person of God the Trinity.) Furthermore, their starting dates, in most cases, are more than 1500 years after the death resurrection, and ascension into Heaven of Christ - not to mention 1500 years after He gave the church to Peter, and then Peter gave it to Pope Linus, who then gave it to Pope Anacletus, who then gave it to Pope Clement, etc., until Pope John Paul II gave it to Pope Benedict XVI.

The individuals within them are invisibly joined to the Catholic Church through their Trinitarian baptism, and because they intend to follow Jesus Christ, and are doing so to the best of their ability and understanding.

Am I to understand that having been cradled in the Christian church - Canadian Convention Baptist, mainstream, conservative, founded by dour Scots in Canada in the 1830s - and baptised (total immersion) at 12, having worked in Africa for forty years according to the examples and values taught by Christ and now contemplating conversion, I have been utterly misled? That I am not, and never have been a Christian? That I am not one of those who might, just might have a look-in at heaven (whatever)? That I am a counterfeit Christian, belonging to a counterfeit Church?

Are you truly saying that over 100 million Christians worldwide are in the same bag - counterfeit believers, not worthy to wash His feet?

Let’s put it this way: You are a real Christian (because you have a Trinitarian baptism and you are doing your best to follow Jesus Christ), invisibly and unbeknownst to yourself, joined to the Christ’s Church, who has somehow ended up attending the worship services of a man-made schismatic and possibly heretical institution. (If it makes you feel any better, I’m sure that those born into paganism who find out about Christianity when they are adults find it difficult to believe that everything they were taught to believe in as children is false, too. )

 

[jmcrae]

Are you truly saying that over 100 million Christians worldwide are in the same bag - counterfeit believers, not worthy to wash His feet?

While also not forgetting that there are more than 4 billion atheists, Hindus, pagans, Muslims, Communists, Jews, etc. who are in even worse trouble, having never so much as heard the name of Jesus, or if they have, not having had the Gospel proclaimed to them in a comprehensible and convincing manner.

Nobody likes to believe that their parents didn’t teach them correctly about God.

 

[MrS]

Very many thanks - and, in anticipation, to any others who care to comment. There is much here to think about.

Hopefully it will generate more of the good questions you ask

And there are of course further implications:

Did Christ found the Church of Rome - the Roman Catholic Church - or did he found the universal catholic church - the body of Christ?

Christ founded the Church originally called The Way. Within two generations, those in The Way were referred to not only as Christians, but as Catholics (Ignatius writing in early 100’s)

The Church has a few definitions… the (one) Visible Heirerarchal(?), the (one0 Body of Christ with Christ at the Head, the (one) Bride of Christ…

Are all other major Christian denominations ‘counterfeit’, in your interpretation or opinion or according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome?

Not exactly… If the Catholic Church is a dollar bill, perhaps some other Christian denominations are a nickle, or half dollar… but all are short of access to the fullness of the Faith.

Am I to understand that having been cradled in the Christian church - Canadian Convention Baptist, mainstream, conservative, founded by dour Scots in Canada in the 1830s - and baptised (total immersion) at 12, having worked in Africa for forty years according to the examples and values taught by Christ and now contemplating conversion, I have been utterly misled? That I am not, and never have been a Christian? That I am not one of those who might, just might have a look-in at heaven (whatever)? That I am a counterfeit Christian, belonging to a counterfeit Church?

The misled part would have to be a yes. On purpose or with malice… not likely. God will hold you accountable for your walk with the Lord,… perhaps His plan is to show you error so that you can better understand the Truth

Again, conterfeit… yes, but…

Are you truly saying that over 100 million Christians worldwide are in the same bag - counterfeit believers, not worthy to wash His feet?

Never would I doubt that Christ has a plan for each of us. He certainly desires all to come to Him… but, myself for instance - He allowed me to leave the Church for 25 years. Upon my return, and seeing the “changes”, I wondered what the h happened. And the desire of well meaning Baptists etc to “save” me showed me that I knew they were wrong… but did not know how to tell them they were wrong… enter Catholic Apologetics… and I am hooked for life, and the life of my soul.

 

[StevenFrancis]

"I am asking:

(1) One Church:
Is that the universal body of Christ (catholic church) or the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome (Catholic Church)?

This one can NOT be answered in the direct way in which you want. (I’m assuming you will only take a binary answer). So it’s not worth your time to phrase question 1 in this manner. You must change your standards for accepting an answer, and do personal research and prayer to DISCERN the answer to question 1. If you want Catholic resources to look at, it would be easy to post a bibliography for you, IF you’re interested.

(2) One Lord:
Is that Yaweh, the God worshipped by all Christians, or is that the Lord as defined and adored by the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

Yes. It’s not an OR question. They are one and the same.

(3) One Faith:
Is that the Christian faith, interpreted variously by Christian denominations, or is that the Catholic Christian faith of which the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome is the principal keeper?

Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is the principal keeper through apostolic succession.

(4) One baptism
Is that the baptism of any Christian believer who follows the teachings of Christ, or is that the baptism and confirmation of believers into the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

Any Christian baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost, (Trinitarian)

I shall add

(5) The Scriptures
Are these the Christian books (never mind the number) that form the Bible which sets out the core of belief for all Christians, or are they the Scriptures belonging only to the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome.

There is only one full Canon. Yes, it is the Catholic Canon. Protestant councils removed books from the originally approved Christian Canon.

All but question 1 have very simple answers. You have to be willing to go deeper to get your answer for question 1.

Peace,

Steven

 

[nerfherder]

Again thanks.

After my query above, I have two further questions - to anyone - then I shall go think.

(1) We have the Avignon Papacy in the period 1309 to 1377 during which seven popes, all French, resided in Avignon:
Pope Clement V: 1305–1314
Pope John XXII: 1316–1334
Pope Benedict XII: 1334–1342
Pope Clement VI: 1342–1352
Pope Innocent VI: 1352–1362
Pope Urban V: 1362–1370
Pope Gregory XI: 1370–1378

In 1378, Gregory XI moved the papal residence back to Rome and died there. Due to a dispute over the subsequent election, a faction of cardinals set up an antipope back in Avignon:
Clement VII: 1378–1394
Benedict XIII: 1394–1423 (expelled from Avignon in 1403)

This was the period of difficulty from 1378 to 1417 which Catholic scholars refer to as the “Western schism” or, “the great controversy of the antipopes” (also called “the second great schism” by some secular and Protestant historians), when parties within the Catholic church were divided in their allegiances among the various claimants to the office of pope. The Council of Constance in 1417 finally resolved the controversy.

Is there any possibility that papal succession was terminally confused during this period? That the succession was fallibly determined? Or has this been worked out by the Magisterium or a Commission?

1. The assumption that RCC continues on the main path, while other Christian denominations have fallen off is virtually universal. It occurs to me however that, although its interpretations are held to be divinely inspired, continuous, and comprehensive, there is a possibility that RCC took off in the wrong direction while the reformed churches (mainstream protestantism and let us not forget Eastern Orthodoxy) in their determination to undo the errors of the Roman Church, continued to hack out the main path of Christian faith.

Is it possible that RCC is on a rather grand detour, and that protestantism is showing the way to true faith, particularly in its missions to humanity, its spirituality, and its generally more intimate relationship with Christ - for starters?

 

[jmcrae]

Again thanks.

After my query above, I have two further questions - to anyone - then I shall go think.

(1) We have the Avignon Papacy in the period 1309 to 1377 during which seven popes, all French, resided in Avignon:
Pope Clement V: 1305–1314
Pope John XXII: 1316–1334
Pope Benedict XII: 1334–1342
Pope Clement VI: 1342–1352
Pope Innocent VI: 1352–1362
Pope Urban V: 1362–1370
Pope Gregory XI: 1370–1378

Not a problem, since they were in the line of succession from Peter. Being in the line of succession from Peter is the important thing: not the physical location. Keep in mind, the headquarters of the Church moved from Jerusalem to Rome when St. Peter was kidnapped by the pagans and brought there to be crucified. The move to Rome did not cause either Peter or the Church to cease to exist. Neither would any move out of Rome cause the Church or Peter’s successor to cease to exist.

In 1378, Gregory XI moved the papal residence back to Rome and died there. Due to a dispute over the subsequent election, a faction of cardinals set up an antipope back in Avignon:
Clement VII: 1378–1394
Benedict XIII: 1394–1423 (expelled from Avignon in 1403)

This was the period of difficulty from 1378 to 1417 which Catholic scholars refer to as the “Western schism” or, “the great controversy of the antipopes” (also called “the second great schism” by some secular and Protestant historians), when parties within the Catholic church were divided in their allegiances among the various claimants to the office of pope. The Council of Constance in 1417 finally resolved the controversy.

Is there any possibility that papal succession was terminally confused during this period? That the succession was fallibly determined? Or has this been worked out by the Magisterium or a Commission?

Every Bishop of the Catholic Church has the Succession. If he is elected Pope, he begins to exercise it. So, no, the Succession could not have been lost - but yes, there was some confusion about who had been properly elected, at the time.

1. The assumption that RCC continues on the main path, while other Christian denominations have fallen off is virtually universal. It occurs to me however that, although its interpretations are held to be divinely inspired, continuous, and comprehensive, there is a possibility that RCC took off in the wrong direction while the reformed churches (mainstream protestantism and let us not forget Eastern Orthodoxy) in their determination to undo the errors of the Roman Church, continued to hack out the main path of Christian faith.

This is impossible for two reasons: 1) The Catholic Church received Christ’s promise of protection, and 2) These other churches weren’t even around yet when Christ was walking the earth, which means that they did not receive any promises of any kind from Him.

Is it possible that RCC is on a rather grand detour, and that protestantism is showing the way to true faith, particularly in its missions to humanity, its spirituality, and its generally more intimate relationship with Christ - for starters?

No.

 

[guanophore]

According to God… I belong to His church because I am the “whosoever that believes”. Not the whosoever gets water baptized and gets indoctrinated with something other than God’s Word. I joined his church when I believed in the finished work of Jesus on cross, His death, and the power of His resurrection. I am baptized with the Holy Ghost because I believe and repent.

So, you don’t believe that you need to obey Jesus in order to be part of His church?

 

[inkarpathos]

Question: in the ancient time, who were the chosen people of God
Answer: The Jews. They kept Gods Law for thousands of years.

Question: Who were the ones that wanted Christ Crucified?
Answer: The Rabbis and Pharisees.

Question: Why did not the Rabbis and Pharisees want Christ Crucified?
Answer: They had a Good thing going, just as the Catholic Church has a good thing going and has left the Apostolic ways!!!

Question: Why does the Pope have a Satanic Bent Cross?
Question: Why did Pope Paul II site on a thrown with an upside down Satanic Cross when he went to Israel?
Question: How did the Catholic Church spread Christianity, with love or with the sword?

He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Do you remember who said this and when???

May Christ forgive all the sinners of this world, especially Juda!!!

 

[nerfherder]

There are points to be taken up in the answers from MrS and jmcrae, but let me start with some brief responses on this one.

(1) One Church:
Is that the universal body of Christ (catholic church) or the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome (Catholic Church)?

This one can NOT be answered in the direct way in which you want. (I’m assuming you will only take a binary answer). So it’s not worth your time to phrase question 1 in this manner. You must change your standards for accepting an answer, and do personal research and prayer to DISCERN the answer to question 1. If you want Catholic resources to look at, it would be easy to post a bibliography for you, IF you’re interested.

Your answer is patronising, and I know you will be sorry for that. I *am *a researcher and I am asking these questions because some of the replies regarding Christian denominations, and also the supremacy of the RCC on these two threads are confusing and disturbing to a would-be convert.

Perhaps you could guide me by telling me how you think the question should be rephrased?

I am reading Nouwen, Vanier, Nolan, Vinoba Bhave, Dawkins, Krishnamurty, Armstrong, CCC inter alia, and using the Catholic Encyc. etc on the Internet. But if you think there are authoritative sources on doctrine and dogma I should see, I would be glad to have references.

(2) One Lord:
Is that Yaweh, the God worshipped by all Christians, or is that the Lord as defined and worshipped by the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

Yes. It’s not an OR question. They are one and the same.

Can you tell me how you know this? Is it an assumption you make that mainstream Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, United Church of Canada or Zambia, or Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa adherents worship a Lord characterised by the same nature, relationship with humanity, and intimacy as the Lord characterised in various documents of RCC? Do you have access to knowledge about the Lord of protestantism that would be helpful in drawing the conclusion you do?

(3) One Faith:
Is that the Christian faith, interpreted variously by Christian denominations, or is that the Catholic Christian faith of which the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome is the principal keeper?

Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is the principal keeper through apostolic succession.

Why? By what authority as far as other major Christian denominations are concerned?

(4) One baptism
Is that the baptism of any Christian believer who follows the teachings of Christ, or is that the baptism and confirmation of believers into the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

Any Christian baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost, (Trinitarian)

Yes, anyone who is baptised in another denomination is eligible for extended teaching and then confirmation in the RCC. Before that, any reformed church Christian would be denied acess to the sacraments of the RCC. It is the confirmation that counts, is it not? Or am I missing something here?

(5) The Scriptures
Are these the Christian books (never mind the number) that form the Bible which sets out the core of belief for all Christians, or are they the Scriptures belonging only to the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome.

There is only one full Canon. Yes, it is the Catholic Canon. Protestant councils removed books from the originally approved Christian Canon.

Perhaps we could dispense with this argument about how many books, now that virtually all Bibles printed today, in whatever language, include the deuterocanonical books, the Apocrypha. That’s why I didn’t want to get into the issue of the number of books in the Bible.

This question is put because OPs have sometimes insisted that the scriptures are the RCC scriptures, they somehow belong to RCC and no one else. I am not sure where this belief comes from, or how it has arisen - and yes I am aware of the Council of Niceae 325 CE. And I am not sure what ownership by RCC means.

I look forward to further advice and guidance.

With thanks,

 

[jmcrae]

This question is put because OPs have sometimes insisted that the scriptures are the RCC scriptures, they somehow belong to RCC and no one else. I am not sure where this belief comes from, or how it has arisen - and yes I am aware of the Council of Niceae 325 CE.

What has the Council of Nicea to do with Scripture?

The Councils that determined the canon of Scripture were Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, in the late 300s. These were local councils; not universal councils, so their conclusions were promulgated infallibly to the Church by the Pope of the time. The canon itself was declared by Pope Damasus, and the instruction to have copies made for every Church in Christendom was given by Pope Innocent I.

 

[nerfherder]

Thanks truly for all your observations, although it is difficult for me to agree with all of them.

Every Bishop of the Catholic Church has the Succession. If he is elected Pope, he begins to exercise it. So, no, the Succession could not have been lost - but yes, there was some confusion about who had been properly elected, at the time.

How are we sure this got sorted out correctly? Was it through divine inspiration as a result of prayer, or negotiation, or what? What ensured that the succession remained properly intact? This seems to be a critically important point that is rarely discussed in the same breath as the security of apostolic succession.

No. This [protestantism is on the main path, RCC on a detour] is impossible for two reasons: 1) The Catholic Church received Christ’s promise of protection, and 2) These other churches weren’t even around yet when Christ was walking the earth, which means that they did not receive any promises of any kind from Him.

With God, anything is possible, no?

Which promise of protection did Christ give? Did He give it to the universal Christian church, or did he specifically give it only to the Roman Church?

There were no members of any Christian denomination walking around while Christ was walking around. All mainstream Christian denominations (that includes RCC) claim a special relationship of some kind with God and His Son, the Trinity.

I know that RCC adherents are particularly immoveable on the matter of Christ passing the keys of His church to Peter and establishing the apostolic succession. But that is a matter of the faith of one particular Christian denomination.

Why does this belief apply to other mainstream Christians who have their own understandings of carrying out Christ’s teaching, who have moved away from the sometimes impenetrable doctrinal disputes which may characterise RCC down through the centuries, towards a greater focus on mission and ministry?

Is it not possible that increasing focus on living this life with merit and compassion - as reformed churches did - and reducing focus on salvation for the individual believer may have signalled the current mainline move to greater spirituality and social responsibility? That would put protestantism on the main road - no?

Many thanks,

 

[nerfherder]

What has the Council of Nicea to do with Scripture?

The Councils that determined the canon of Scripture were Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, in the late 300s. These were local councils; not universal councils, so their conclusions were promulgated infallibly to the Church by the Pope of the time. The canon itself was declared by Pope Damasus, and the instruction to have copies made for every Church in Christendom was given by Pope Innocent I.

‘With the creation of the Nicene Creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which were intended to become guidelines for doctrinal orthodoxy and a source of unity for the whole of Christendom — a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.’ This is what I have been taught - that Niceae initiated agreement on the canon.

My real concern was:

OPs have sometimes insisted that the scriptures are the RCC scriptures, they somehow belong to RCC and no one else. I am not sure where this belief comes from, or how it has arisen or what it actually means for other Christians who use the Bible, including the deuterocanonical books.

 

[MrS]

OPs have sometimes insisted that the scriptures are the RCC scriptures, they somehow belong to RCC and no one else. I am not sure where this belief comes from, or how it has arisen or what it actually means for other Christians who use the Bible, including the deuterocanonical books.

Sometimes I think of it as my son… He is my son, and he came to the world through me (and Mom too ). He is now for the world to share… some will take advantage of him, some will ignore him. But he (and He) will always be His Mother’s son (Son).

He will become better known, better understood as time goes on… but he will never be the son of another.

The Church came first, the Bible came to us through the Church… and it will never come to us from or through another.

 

[StevenFrancis]

There are points to be taken up in the answers from MrS and jmcrae, but let me start with some brief responses on this one.

Your answer is patronising, and I know you will be sorry for that. I *am *a researcher and I am asking these questions because some of the replies regarding Christian denominations, and also the supremacy of the RCC on these two threads are confusing and disturbing to a would-be convert.

Perhaps you could guide me by telling me how you think the question should be rephrased?

I am reading Nouwen, Vanier, Nolan, Vinoba Bhave, Dawkins, Krishnamurty, Armstrong, CCC inter alia, and using the Catholic Encyc. etc on the Internet. But if you think there are authoritative sources on doctrine and dogma I should see, I would be glad to have references.

Can you tell me how you know this? Is it an assumption you make that mainstream Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, United Church of Canada or Zambia, or Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa adherents worship a Lord characterised by the same nature, relationship with humanity, and intimacy as the Lord characterised in various documents of RCC? Do you have access to knowledge about the Lord of protestantism that would be helpful in drawing the conclusion you do?

Why? By what authority as far as other major Christian denominations are concerned?

Yes, anyone who is baptised in another denomination is eligible for extended teaching and then confirmation in the RCC. Before that, any reformed church Christian would be denied acess to the sacraments of the RCC. It is the confirmation that counts, is it not? Or am I missing something here?

Perhaps we could dispense with this argument about how many books, now that virtually all Bibles printed today, in whatever language, include the deuterocanonical books, the Apocrypha. That’s why I didn’t want to get into the issue of the number of books in the Bible.

This question is put because OPs have sometimes insisted that the scriptures are the RCC scriptures, they somehow belong to RCC and no one else. I am not sure where this belief comes from, or how it has arisen - and yes I am aware of the Council of Niceae 325 CE. And I am not sure what ownership by RCC means.

I look forward to further advice and guidance.

With thanks,

I was not intending to patronizing. In my reading of the post that was answering you were being a bit confrontational. You did sound to me like you wanted only straight yes or no answers, and you said nobody had the guts or something to that effect to give them. I gave them straight up in binary yes or no, black or white fashion save for question one which I don’t believe can be answered in that fashion in ANY kind of dialog. Anything I would give you would be from stuff you’re apparently already reading, and judging by your further prompting, you DO want to have explanations. However, the explanations you’re going to get are always going to be open to challenge. Religion and theology still boil down to faith in the end. I was moved by God to my beliefs in a way in which I can not explain. It was sincerely profound to a point where I’m set. I too still study constantly, but from a different position. I read now from a position of increasing my knowledge, not looking to challenge what I was already blessed to receive.

I was lucky. I know this. It only took 30 years. I think what’s best is that I stay out of the contentious threads for a while. Seriously. I’ve found myself growing a bit testy the past couple days on this forum, and that’s not a good thing at any time really. Let alone when you’re wanting to win souls. Sorry if I offended, and Peace be with you. I hope you one day find whatever the heck this is that finally got a hold of me. There are no words.

Steven

 

[Grace_Seeker]

False. The Jews had the Old Testament. If you’d like to believe otherwise thats your choice. There are only 66 books in the bible according to God. According to your religion there are 73. I choose to believe God. Believe what you want.

What she said was that they had not been put into a book yet, they were all kept on scrolls. And she is right about that. The first codex would not be written for another couple hundred years. So there really was no order set until that time.

On the other hand, as all the scrolls were kept in a place called bibliotheca (Latin for library). Of course, a library would have more than just the books of the canon in it. It would have other scrolls as well. Important histories and other writings might also be saved. And if relevant to the church, then they might be placed alongside the scrolls of the canon. When these scrolls were written into a codex and that codex was seen as just another form of bibliotheca or bible for short (bible is the same in both English and Latin), then it would make sense to incorporate other scrolls in addition to the canon into this newer version of a library, just as they had been kept in the older version of the library.

I don’t think that an argument from either the number or the order of books in the collection prior to the decision of the Jews to not include them in 90 A.D. really carries much weight one way or the other. And in jmcrae’s view, this decision was tainted by their concerns over Christianity. Not sure what any of that has to do with the question under discussion about whether or not the Catholic Church is just another denomination???