The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[Kurt_G]

…
That’s the point. Protestants claim the same type of authority in the face of Peter that St. Paul did in the face of St. Peter. We too believe that God speaks to us – remember we are Trinitarian, when the Holy Spirit speaks to us it is just as much God speaking to us as it was when Jesus spoke to St. Paul.

Grace Seeker, it looks like RNRobert already offered a well-thought answer for you. I would only add:

1. St. Paul actually recognizes Peter’s leadership, when using phrases like “to his face…”.
2. St. Peter never argued with Paul. He seems to have humbly acknowledged his personal shortcoming.
3. St. Paul was baptized, like any other good Christian of the day. (Acts 9:18)
4. St. Paul had hands laid on him by the Church, before he laid hands on any others. (Acts 13:3)
5. St. Paul was “sent” by the Church, on several occasions. (Acts 9:30, Acts 11:30, again Acts 13:3, Acts 15:3, Acts 15:25)

and one more for dessert…

1. St. Paul was given, directly by Jesus, knowledge of the Eucharistic events on Holy Thursday. (1 Cor 11:23)

Evidently, His Eucharist was going to be so important for His Church, that Jesus taught Paul about it directly… wow!

I think these points are often overlooked, even by some within the Church.

God Bless Us All!

 

[jmcrae]

Now ask yourself this question:
By what authority did St. Paul rebuke St. Peter?

By his office as Pharisee, given to him by the High Priest of the Temple of God in Jerusalem.

It is as if St. Paul thought that his own personal experience of encountering Christ was equal to that of St. Peter’s experience of being set apart by Christ for the ministry that he would have.

St. Paul was given a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, and was made an Apostle of Jesus Christ through this means.

(Any modern persons I have heard of who received such visions either were at the time, or immediately became, Catholics. I have never heard of Protestants receiving such visions, who then remained Protestant.)

Surely, St. Paul was wrong. Surely he was speaking heretically.

How so?

But no. You recognize St. Paul’s authority to rebuke St. Peter. You do not call St. Paul a heretic for teaching something contrary to what the Catholic Church was teaching.

Where was he doing that?

Indeed he is allowed to challenge and even correct both the Church and the Pope. Who is this St. Paul? He has no authority except that which he claims from personal experience and his own claim to a unique encounter with God in the person of Jesus.

Not so. He was appointed as a guardian of God’s Laws (that is, a Pharisee) by the High Priest of Jerusalem. A role that he did not abdicate when he became Catholic, as we see from his many letters and from the record of his sayings in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.

What’s next? Will people everywhere start to assert that God has spoken to them as well. Will others in the Church dare to stand up to the Pope, to challenge him, to rebuke him, to risk being called a heretic because they have a better understanding of what God’s will is for the Church than the Church itself does?

St. Paul never did anything of the kind. What he did was he called the Pope (in the manner of St. Catherine of Sienna, his later imitator) to obey God’s Laws, as promulgated by the Pope himself.

St. Paul was not asking St. Peter to do anything that St. Peter had not already commanded the whole Church to do, in God’s name.

What is to keep a person from claiming that God sent them to establish a different branch of the Church?

Answer: Nothing!!

The only Protestant who has ever claimed this was Joseph Smith. Strangely, the majority of Protestants (along with the rest of the world, apart from his own followers) don’t believe him, though …

But none of the “main line” Protestants has ever made such a claim.

 

[jmcrae]

Anyway. If they are questions you truly want answered, as opposed to merely make your point by asking them, then hang on to them and I will be back in here in about 10 days or so.

More of a sick curiousity, I guess. I am truly curious how one can consciously read those passages, and not realize that St. Peter is being made Head of the Church.

When I was Protestant myself, I tended to see those passages as “filler” or “background noise” between the “important stuff” that our particular denomination was focused on, so I used to just skiff right over them in my search for “the main event” stuff.

But as soon as I actually sat down and read those passages with a pen in one hand and my Strong’s Concordance in the other, even I (not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree by any means) managed to figure out that Jesus had, indeed, appointed Peter to be Head of the Church - I even managed to find Isaiah 22 all by myself - with the Concordance - and I think I even managed to figure out the implications of that, at the time.

It didn’t crumble my Protestant faith at the time, because I still had faith that the Reformers had good reasons for what they did. Even if St. Peter were Pope, and even if he had successors, it didn’t mean that God hadn’t changed His mind, somewhere along the way. It was only much later that someone held me by the hand and walked me through the New Testament, showing me Christ’s promises to the Church, and asking me what turned out to be the right questions.

 

[nerfherder]

So very much has been said about the rules, laws, dogma, doctrine that require certain beliefs of members of RCC. There has been long argumentation about who said what to whom, in the ever-fresh attempt to clarify when Christ established the church, which church (universal or Catholic) and must disagreement about the merit or otherwise of protestantism and its churches.

What I am missing, although I have been fairly explicit several times, is any discussion of why one is a member of one denomination and not of another in terms of daily practice as a Christian. What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Roman Catholic? What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian?

How do various denominations define Christ’s mission, and how is that put into practice?

I think that this is the core concern, and much higher priority than what who said to whom and where. What does it mean to be a member of one or the other of the Christian denominations?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

So very much has been said about the rules, laws, dogma, doctrine that require certain beliefs of members of RCC. There has been long argumentation about who said what to whom in the ever-fresh attempt to clarify when Christ established the church, which church (universal or Catholic), and much disagreement about the merit or otherwise of protestantism and its churches.

What I am missing is any discussion of why one is a member of one denomination and not of another in terms of daily practice as a Christian. What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Roman Catholic? What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian?

How do various denominations define Christ’s mission, and how is that put into practice?

I think that this is the core concern, and much higher priority than what who said to whom and where. What does it mean to be a member of one or the other of the Christian denominations?

Christ had a mission. He established a church, he turned us to face God again in worship, but he did far more than that. What say you?

 

[jmcrae]

What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Roman Catholic?

First, the opportunities for such service are world-wide; not limited to a particular national or colonial jurisdiction.

Second, our moral teachings, which we know to come from Christ, show us how to be compassionate in both the spiritual and material realms - we will teach people authentic Christian means to gain control of the material aspects of their lives, while also giving God control over those realms that belong only to Him.

What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian?

First, the opportunities are limited to the countries of origin of these denominations and their colonial outposts.

Second, because they divorce morality from service, it is possible to justify teaching someone how to commit sin in order to save their own life, because the soul is presumed to be already saved by the reciting of a “sinner’s prayer” in the case of the Baptists - meaning that Christian morality can be suspended where it seems to the human mind that following God’s laws might cause someone to have to give his or her life for another, or major discomfort of any other kind.

(I know of a sincere Protestant who thinks that St. Gianna Molla was insane to give up her own life for her child - she thinks that St. Gianna should have had an abortion. If she had been the attending physician, she probably would have aborted St. Gianna’s child against her wishes, in order to save her life. She would have considered this the “Christian” thing to do.)

How do various denominations define Christ’s mission, and how is that put into practice?

Christ’s mission is to bring every human soul into Heaven.

Our mission is to know, love, and obey Him here on earth, in order to be happy with Him for eternity.

I think that this is the core concern, and much higher priority than what who said to whom and where. What does it mean to be a member of one or the other of the Christian denominations?

I should think that one would naturally prefer to belong to the Church that Christ founded, rather than an imitator created by human beings more than 1500 years after His ascension into Heaven.

I guess that’s just me, though.

 

[mdstanzel]

The catholic church doesn’t equal the Roman Catholic church
I feel there is a certain amount of sinful pride among Roman Catholics. Not belonging to the RCC doesn’t mean one is in a theological vacuum. Does Alex Jones say that (former Pentecostal pastor and Catholic convert)? No he doesn’t.

My biggest issue is with cradle Catholics. Of which I am a member. However, I defected many years ago and recently journeyed back. However I did not want to return to the same ole same ole lame cafateria Catholics that brought my temper to a boil for teaching such heresy to others and their children. No wonder other denominations think we don’t know our. … well you know. We’ve made the Church look stupid and rediculous. This isn’t a high school or college football team.

This is the result of “false pride”. Many cradle Catholics do not know the teachings of the Church. They stand up like a Texas Aggie in all bigotry and root for their team NO MATTER WHAT. [low blow from a non-Aggie] Now, my anger to Aggies is about fairness. There are some pretty sorry traditions at A&M just like there are some pretty sorry traditions that many Catholics perpetuate that do not have anything to do with the Church’s teachings. They push screwed up Catholic culture above the teachings of the Church. I will never accept a pompus Catholic shouving Catholicism down someones throat like it’s a take it or leave it type of issue. We believe in in the Church’s teachings, i.e. those of us who know what the Catholic Church teaches and all of us need to continue faith formation to learn and/or maintain the knowledge of the teachings. We all have to work out our “faith through fear and trembling”. For you cradle Catholics, that was a bit of scripture from the Bible that you need to go buy and start reading. Okay I’ll have to confess this, but its how some of our clergy feel too at my parish. Stop being lame and hateful. It’s hypocracy.

I love the bumper sticker that shows Pope Benedict XVI with the words “The Cafateria is now Closed”

 

[Grace_Seeker]

What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian?

Whoa!! I take it in your former protestant incarnation you were NOT a United Methodist.

The United Methodist Church may only be some 10 million people and small compared to the Catholic Church, but we are indeed a world-wide body. Methodism started in England, but soon spread throughout the British empire, and became especially strong in the American colonies. But it is much more than just England the USA and a few outposts. I spent the entire summer of 2005 at work in Chile among Methodists there (the Chilean Methodist Church is an autonomous church, but related to the United Methodist Church). The church of my conference (equivalent to a diocese within the Catholic Church) have a working relationship with the United Methodist Church in Liberia. We pastors set aside a portion of our income for pastors there where the local church cannot support them. We built a schools and hospitals and done other public works projects in Africa long Oprah Winfrey was a national name. Our Africa University was seen by many local leaders as a gift to the entire continent, hence its name. Our relief agency UMCOR is in place wherever crisis strike and emergency relief is needed usually before it makes news headlines, and is there long after governmental agencies and the Red Cross have gone home.

When the need is for humanitarian relief, we don’t look at nationality, status in the world or religion, we just go. My wife and I have taken to hosting children from around the world as one of personal ministries. Several years ago a girl from Turkey was placed with us. Our connection now, though she is back home in Turkey, is still one of mother/father and daughter. When she lived with us it was shortly after her community had been devasted by a terrible earthquake. It was 6 months before school would begin again, when she returne 1/3 of her class was absent, killed in the earthquake. For that time, they lived first in tents (their home having been leveled) and then cargo containers and finally in pre-fab homes. Many of these things were provided by an organization my Muslim daughter had never heard of, a group called UMCOR. But when she came to stay with us she saw the same logo on some of the mail that crossed my desk. She asked about it and when I told her what it was she was so excited. She had wanted to thank the people who saved her and her family, who had gotten them through that first winter and helped them to rebuild their lives afterwards when everyone else had moved on to the next world crisis. She never dreamed she would have the chance because she didn’t know who they were, only that they were connected with some church in the USA. And there is was on my desk. Who were these people? The United Methodist Committee on Relief.

Please don’t tell me that opportunities are limited to our country of origin and colonial outposts. We have not one United Methodist Church in Turkey, but we still are there to make a difference. Chile was never an outpost of England or the United States, but the Methodist Church in Chile has built more schools per capita than the Methodist Church in the United States, where it has a pretty good record with regard to education. We are in not in every country around the world, but we are in 120 of them, and my bet is we might even be in some in which the Catholic Church is not.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

As to our moral teachings, I refer you to our church’s social creed:

We believe in God, Creator of the world; and in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of creation. We believe in the Holy Spirit, through whom we acknowledge God’s gifts, and we repent of our sin in misusing these gifts to idolatrous ends.

We affirm the natural world as God’s handiwork and dedicate ourselves to its preservation, enhancement, and faithful use by humankind.

We joyfully receive for ourselves and others the blessings of community, sexuality, marriage, and the family.

We commit ourselves to the rights of men, women, children, youth, young adults, the aging, and people with disabilities; to improvement of the quality of life; and to the rights and dignity of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.

We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.

We dedicate ourselves to peace throughout the world, to the rule of justice and law among nations, and to individual freedom for all people of the world.

We believe in the present and final triumph of God’s Word in human affairs and gladly accept our commission to manifest the life of the gospel in the world. Amen.

For more information about our church in this respect you can check out The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church. I won’t claim that they are perfect or infallible. Indeed I think we have made a few mistakes in our day, at one point in time the Methodist Church was split over slavery just like the country was. But we discuss these differences amongst ourselves and presently we have split opinions over the issue of homosexuality. The official stand is that the practice of it is incompatible with scripture, but that we are still called to be in loving ministry with all persons regardless of sexual orientation.

So, talk about what you like in the Catholic Church. Talk about the protestant church you came out of and didn’t like about it. But, please, don’t volunteer information about my church and its ministries (good or bad) if you don’t know any more about it than you appear to.

 

[jmcrae]

Whoa!! I take it in your former protestant incarnation you were NOT a United Methodist.

I was a member of the United Church of Canada.

I watched a girl from my Sunday School class get whisked off by some “caring” ladies in the Church to the local abortion provider to “fix” her “condition” of being pregnant out of wedlock. (Because, apparently, that’s a disease. )

So much for justice for the weakest members. I can only hope that that little baby never knew what hit her. Meanwhile, that young woman who would have been her mother has since gone on to become an alcoholic, as often happens to women when their children are ripped away from them.

By the way, the Catholic Church is in every country in the world. We even have a Diocese on the Moon, although we have yet to put up any buildings, or to staff it with a Bishop and priests. The Bishop of Orlando currently holds the responsibility for the Diocese of the Moon.

 

[guanophore]

Now ask yourself this question:
By what authority did St. Paul rebuke St. Peter?
It is as if St. Paul thought that his own personal experience of encountering Christ was equal to that of St. Peter’s experience of being set apart by Christ for the ministry that he would have.

Surely, St. Paul was wrong. Surely he was speaking heretically. But no. You recognize St. Paul’s authority to rebuke St. Peter. You do not call St. Paul a heretic for teaching something contrary to what the Catholic Church was teaching. Indeed he is allowed to challenge and even correct both the Church and the Pope. Who is this St. Paul? He has no authority except that which he claims from personal experience and his own claim to a unique encounter with God in the person of Jesus. What’s next? Will people everywhere start to assert that God has spoken to them as well. Will others in the Church dare to stand up to the Pope, to challenge him, to rebuke him, to risk being called a heretic because they have a better understanding of what God’s will is for the Church than the Church itself does? What is to keep a person from claiming that God sent them to establish a different branch of the Church?

Answer: Nothing!!

That’s the point. Protestants claim the same type of authority in the face of Peter that St. Paul did in the face of St. Peter. We too believe that God speaks to us – remember we are Trinitarian, when the Holy Spirit speaks to us it is just as much God speaking to us as it was when Jesus spoke to St. Paul.

I think the difference might be that Jesus appointed Paul to be an apostle. There is a sense in which we are each and every “one sent forth”, but no one’s ministry before or since has been like that of Paul. The other problem with your reasoning is that you are mixing apples and oranges. Peter behaved in a way inconsistent with what the Church, directed by the holy spirit, decided. Infalibility extends to teaching the doctrine of Christ. I think you are confusing infallibility with inerrancy. There have been a number of popes that have a less than holy conduct. It does not mean that Jesus was unable to protect His church from error.

I think it is pretty presumptuous for someone to decide it is right an appropriate to criticize an institution that has been around for 2000 years. I think it would the better part of humility to study and understand why things are the way they are first. However, beware! In the course of doing that, I became more CAtholic than ever!

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Differences in Denominations wrt Christian behaviour

What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Roman Catholic?

First, the opportunities for such service are world-wide; not limited to a particular national or colonial jurisdiction. Second, our moral teachings, which we know to come from Christ, show us how to be compassionate in both the spiritual and material realms - we will teach people authentic Christian means to gain control of the material aspects of their lives, while also giving God control over those realms that belong only to Him.

Hold on,hold on, does this mean you thinnk no other Christian church has a world-wide presence? Or what? Maybe not as many churches, but maybe as Grace Seeker says.

Do you think moral teachings came from Christ to the Catholic Church alone? Or are you saying that other denominations are different, and not morally informed. Not following here.

Got a small prob with ‘being compassionate in the material realm’: can you clear this up? perhaps along with ‘giving God control over those realms that belong only to Him’?

**Will we come up with an answer to the question about what to do with this moral teaching once we have it?

*What does it mean, in terms of service and compassion, to be a Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian? *First, the opportunities are limited to the countries of origin of these denominations and their colonial outposts.

Think Grace Seeker has already objected here , believing as he does that at least his church has a worldwide presence. Not possible for other Protestant churches? Do we have any info?

Second, because they [Protestants] divorce morality from service, it is possible to justify teaching someone how to commit sin in order to save their own life, because the soul is presumed to be already saved by the reciting of a “sinner’s prayer” in the case of the Baptists - meaning that Christian morality can be suspended where it seems to the human mind that following God’s laws might cause someone to have to give his or her life for another, or major discomfort of any other kind.

Wow, these are pretty big ideas, and can I ask where they are coming from? Are you saying that the Protestants really separate Christ’s example of how to be, to behave, from any service they might give? How can they do that? Do they believe in giving Christian service at all? Maybe they don’t.

I Googled ‘sinner’s prayer’ and yep, there is was. But it has conditions no? I mean you can’t just say the prayer and expect to be forgiven? I know some nice Baptists, and I have never heard them talk about the prayer. It’s a pretty hard thing to say that (if I get you) Protestants like the Baptists are not moral, that they don’t mind committing sin if it suits them because they know they can get out of it easy, and that they actually teach this!

How do various denominations define Christ’s mission, and how is that put into practice? Christ’s mission is to bring every human soul into Heaven. Our mission is to know, love, and obey Him here on earth, in order to be happy with Him for eternity.

Yabut, is this from the Roman Catholic point of view, or from another denominational point of view, that is are they all more or less the same?

So Christ’s mission was salvation, redeeming us from sin? Anything else? Then if we obey Him, we can have life everlasting? Isn’t that kind of a ME kind of thing? I mean, does it give us a believers’ job to do now, or do we just wait to die and go to heaven to be happy?

*How do various denominations define Christ’s mission, and how is that put into practice? *I think that this is the core concern, and much higher priority than what who said to whom and where. What does it mean to be a member of one or the other of the Christian denominations? I should think that one would naturally prefer to belong to the Church that Christ founded, rather than an imitator created by human beings more than 1500 years after His ascension into Heaven.

Can you look again at the question asked? I read it to mean how a believer - a Catholic or a member of a Protestant denomination - puts Christ’s commandments into operation. Maybe if each denomination understands his mission different from the others, then there will be differences in what they do, their behaviour, the way they help others, or don’t help others, in daily life.

Thanks!!!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I should think that one would naturally prefer to belong to the Church that Christ founded, rather than an imitator created by human beings more than 1500 years after His ascension into Heaven.

I guess that’s just me, though.

Round and round the mulberry bush…

I already am a member of the Church Christ founded. We all are. We are members by virture of being members of the Body of Christ, that’s true whether we are Catholic or Orthodox or Presbyterian or United Methodist or Joe’s Church on the side of the hill. So, I may not be a member of the Catholic Church, but I am a member of Christ’s Church. There is no difference which one of the sub-sets of Christendom we belong to, they all belong equally to Christ. Now you may not recognize that as truth, but really that isn’t my problem. I am quite comfortable being called a schismatic, a heretic, or even an unbeliever by any man; I know I am not viewed that way by Jesus Christ. So, yes, it is just you who finds it somehow different to belong to the Catholic Church than any other part of the Body of Christ. For all the protestations and verses by which people have tried to provide proof for the supremacy of the Catholic Church, I find the whole argument entirely unconvincing.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Round and round the mulberry bush…

I already am a member of the Church Christ founded. We all are. We are members by virture of being members of the Body of Christ, that’s true whether we are Catholic or Orthodox or Presbyterian or United Methodist or Joe’s Church on the side of the hill. So, I may not be a member of the Catholic Church, but I am a member of Christ’s Church. There is no difference which one of the sub-sets of Christendom we belong to, they all belong equally to Christ. Now you may not recognize that as truth, but really that isn’t my problem. I am quite comfortable being called a schismatic, a heretic, or even an unbeliever by any man; I know I am not viewed that way by Jesus Christ. So, yes, it is just you who finds it somehow different to belong to the Catholic Church than any other part of the Body of Christ. For all the protestations and verses by which people have tried to provide proof for the supremacy of the Catholic Church, I find the whole argument entirely unconvincing.

Here’s another turn around the Mulbury Bush.

Actually Christ founded only the Catholic Church. The father of protestantism…is Luther. He founded (indirectly) Joe’s Church on the Hill and the other thousands of protestant denominations. While I appreciate your view that you see little difference between religions, there surely is. I pray you dig a little deeper and uncover the real and significant belief differences between Catholicism and the others.

God Bless!

Iowa Mike

 

[mark_a]

That’s the point. Protestants claim the same type of authority in the face of Peter that St. Paul did in the face of St. Peter.

The above gives the impression that you think the Pope could never be wrong, corrected, rebuked, uncertain, pressured by peers, etc. or even human.

We too believe that God speaks to us – remember we are Trinitarian, when the Holy Spirit speaks to us it is just as much God speaking to us as it was when Jesus spoke to St. Paul.

Is he telling you more than he told Paul?

 

[mark_a]

There is no difference which one of the sub-sets of Christendom we belong to

Right. God loves us all and wants us to do his will. There are differences in denoms’ beliefs though. We can’t all be right.

How about those Catholic moral teachings I asked about? Being indifferent to them or thinking they don’t apply to you is unrealistic. For example:

• Being personally opposed to abortion but unwilling to stand against government funding of abortion makes one pro-choice
• not preaching against government funding of artificial and abortificient birth control, leaving it up to parishioners own conscience makes one pro Planned Parenthood

, they all belong equally to Christ. Now you may not recognize that as truth, but really that isn’t my problem.

Every human being, past,present, and future belongs to Christ. Especially quasi-Christians and non Christians. In some of your earlier posts, you really seemed to be down on JW’s and Mormons, which is what you seem to think Catholics are doing to you.

I am quite comfortable being called a schismatic, a heretic, or even an unbeliever by any man;

Then what was this thread about?

Speaking from the other side of the fence, it burns me when someone tells me I’m going to hell because I’m Catholic. Its a weakness of mine, rooted in my childhood growing up in the deep south. I am very uncomfortable being called a schizmatic, heretic, hethen, bead mumbler. Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[mark_a]

For more information about our church in this respect you can check out The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church. I won’t claim that they are perfect or infallible. Indeed I think we have made a few mistakes in our day, at one point in time the Methodist Church was split over slavery just like the country was.

The Catholic Diocese of Charleston issued an apology about ten years ago for owning slaves.

But we discuss these differences amongst ourselves and presently we have split opinions over the issue of homosexuality.

We call these differences dissent in the Catholic Church.

The official stand is that the practice of it is incompatible with scripture, but that we are still called to be in loving ministry with all persons regardless of sexual orientation.

Sounds very Catholic to me.

I read in another one of your posts about planning a service with a Catholic priest. They are generally much easier to get along with than internet forum screen names.

Anyway, in more than one Protestant-to-Catholic conversion story the convert was shocked when he approached a Catholic priest and was asked “Your not going to become a Catholic are you?” The Catholic priest thought he should serve in his own faith.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now ask yourself this question:
By what authority did St. Paul rebuke St. Peter?

No, it wasn’t by any office. There was no “office” of Pharisee. How did you come to believe there was? Pharisees were a sect within Judaism. Think of them as a religious party (or even a denomination if you will). It developed from Hasidim. Most were middle-class. The opposed the priestly aristocracy. They were conservative, even strict fundamentalists in their observance of the Torah and studied it rigorously. Conservatives and orthodox Jews today are theological descendants of the Pharisees. The only authority that Paul had in the Church was that of his encounter with the risen Lord and the Church’s acceptance of him as one set apart by Christ to be employed in ministry. Indeed that is exactly the authority that every Christian. No more, no less, whether Apostle, Priest, Teacher, or Pope. Within the Church we look to our leaders to bring order. That is why Luther was wrong, he rebelled rather than submit and so he sowed seeds of disorder. But that is water long under the bridge. There is no disorder now. Though there are many churches, each has its own governance through which the Holy Spirit is able to administer it and, when we listen, bring us together to work in ways where the sum of our parts is greater than the whole.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I don’t see anything in the Bible about the right of Christians to start their own denominations.

I don’t see anything against it. The key is not what or the number of denominations that exist. The key is are all operating under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 9
49And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Do you really think Jesus would say something different that this to Luther, Calvin and the rest? I don’t. They weren’t against Christ. They weren’t even against Christ’s Church, only against those who they felt had caused the true Church to be lost within the heirarchy and traditions of the Catholic Church.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think it is pretty presumptuous for someone to decide it is right an appropriate to criticize an institution that has been around for 2000 years. I think it would the better part of humility to study and understand why things are the way they are first. However, beware! In the course of doing that, I became more CAtholic than ever!

How much more catholic can I get. I already believe that we are all brothers and sisters in one universal Church that belongs to Christ. I don’t think the labels such as Catholic or Methodist or Lutheran mean anything to Christ at all. They only have meaning on earth as we organize ourselves to be the Church militant. They tell us who is in the chain of command. As long as Christ is Commander in Chief over all, I think that us soldiers ought to be pretty flexible to follow the chain of command for the branch of the service we are in. But if the Commander in Chief wants to move us to another branch of the service, then we adjust to receiving our orders through that chain of command…