The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[Grace_Seeker]

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

Based on the title, it seems to be a discussion of whether or not the Catholic Church is just another denomination. My opinion is “Yes, it is.” Others seem to want more than just my “Yes” of “No” answer. And as I have time, I have been willing to oblige them. In the course of answering the questions, I have also asked a few questions of my own to better my understanding of how and why those Catholics who do, see themselves as the exclusive inheritors of Christ’s promise to found a Church. I think others are doing basically the same thing from their respective positions. That’s what I see this thread as being about. What do you see it to be 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.

I have seen that too, though I did not experienced it personally as you have. I think it is a shame. Though I never felt them to accurately portray Roman Catholicism, I regret I ever found Jack Chick tracts even interesting to read. To ever accept a portrayal of another Christian as anything less than the brother or sister in Christ that they are is a sin. On behalf of all of us who have been guilt of this toward Catholics, I am heartily sorry, and beseech you to accept our true repentance and grant us forgiveness.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

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.

Indeed. Several years ago, when I was still in college, we wanted to have a communion service just before Christmas break at which all the student body, including Catholic students, could participate. We knew that normally, the Catholic students on campus felt like that could not partake of the communion elements with the rest of us protestant students. So, we sought the permission of the Bishop of the Diocese to allow for the Catholics to join us in full communion for this service. He granted it.

It really was wonderful that we could all celebrate and receive the body and blood of Christ together as one body of Christ, with no divisions nor vieiwng one another as separated brethern. For one evening, though still of many different denominations, we truly were one in Christ. I don’t know why it can’t be like that all the time.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I am aware there are now two discussions going on:

(1) the perpetual discussion, admirably led by Grace Seeker, about the supremacy or otherwise of the Roman Catholic Church, and its CCC and Magisterium. Contributions and understandings have for many of us been immensely helpful.

(2) an attempt to move away from the concentration on the dogmatic beliefs, the rules, the interpretations of Catholicity, toward what it means to be a Christian in different denominations. I am starting to think we are so busy with our rules that we are not interested in actually living as Christians or even thinking about living as Christians.

**Perhaps a new thread is indicated on (2). **

I find the discussion of which denomination is ‘better’ (which is not the title of the thread) dry and dusty. It will go on forever, it will never be resolved, it is divisive, and I think that Grace Seeker has said the say for many of us by emphasising that we have all chosen to be members of the body of Christ, and that for many of us denominations are essentially irrelevant if this is true.

Proselytising has no place on the Forum, as I understand it, but there seems to be an insistence among RCC brothers and sisters that the errant sheep must be gathered into the fold of the One True Faith.

The next step for me is how our belief systems influence our lives as Christians of different denominations, and I have written about this above, and received an answer by jmcrae. This is perhaps by far the more important concern. We can be Roman Catholics or Methodists or Quakers (who have surprisingly not had a look in here) etc with every platelet in our body, but if that does not manifest itself in our daily life as Christians, then it is all for nought - except that we will go to heaven or whatever after death.

My first question to Baptists -and/or others - lurking out there:

How do you reply to the proposal made by jmcrae that:

Quote by jmcrae

*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 look forward to replies. Then I would like to see if we can take a snapshot of the Christian life of various denominations.

 

[nerfherder]

Following the example of Grace Seeker, I offer up the introduction to the new statement of faith by the United Church of Canada:

A Song of Faith

A Statement of Faith of
The United Church of Canada
L’Église Unie du Canada

PREAMBLE

This statement of faith seeks to provide a verbal picture of what The United Church of Canada understands its faith to be in its current historical, political, social, and theological context at the beginning of the 21st century. It is also a means of ongoing reflection and an invitation for the church to live out its convictions in relation to the world in which we live.

The church’s faith is grounded in truths that are timeless. These truths, however, must be embraced anew by Christians of each generation and stated “in terms of the thoughts of their own age and with the emphasis their age needs” (Statement of Faith, 1940).

This is not the first time the United Church has formally expressed its collective faith. In the Basis of Union (1925), in the Statement of Faith (1940), and in A New Creed (1968), the United Church stated its faith in words appropriate to its time. This current statement of faith is offered within that tradition, and in response to the request of the 37th General Council (2000) for a “timely and contextual statement of faith” that especially engages “the church in conversation on the nature of the church (ecclesiology), ministry and the sacraments.”

**This statement of faith attempts to reflect the spirit of The United Church of Canada and to respond to various defining elements in our social, political, and historical context, including the place of the church in society, the cultural and intellectual setting in which we find ourselves, the meaning of “truth,” the impact of the market economy on our daily lives, and the growing issue of the meaning of “security.” **These contextual elements are further explored in the appendices to this document.

This is not a statement for all time but for our time. In as much as the Spirit keeps faith with us, we can express our understanding of the Holy with confidence. And in as much as the Spirit is vast and wild, we recognize that our understanding of the Holy is always partial and limited. Nonetheless we have faith, and this statement collects the meaning of our song.

The full and very beautiful quasi-poetic text can be found on the website of the United Church of Canada.

 

[nerfherder]

I want to share these images with you at Eastertide, prayerfully.

I also hope they will turn our minds towards our **responsibilities **as Christians of whatever denomination, and away from a singleminded concentration on our **prerogatives **as members of various denominations.

Through Him, with Him, in Him
Christ work through me
Christ stand with me
Christ be in me

REMEMBER THE HIV CHILDREN FOR WHOM WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE

The Sinisizo home-based care programme in Kwa-Zulu Natal Province [South Africa] helps children aged nine to 14 who are the primary caregivers for parents dying of HIV/AIDS and for smaller brothers and sisters.

The majority live in households with no incomes, many with parents who have been sent home from hospital - sometimes comatose - a day or two before they are expected to die.

In the many homes where there are no beds, the children, often malnourished, struggle to lift and turn their parents and to help them to the toilet.

Children from some of the 900 families with whom Sinisizo is working talked about their difficulties. “They say waste disposal is the most difficult thing - getting rid of soiled dressings and incontinence pads. They also have to find food for their families, cook for and feed their parents and younger siblings. They have to ask for food from the neighbours and it takes hours to get enough for one day. They have to cook on paraffin stoves and open fires while they are carrying smaller children on their backs or hips. They have to fetch water for drinking, cooking, bathing and washing clothes, and a small child can’t carry enough.”

If there is any medication available, the children also dispense that, “but most of the time they can’t even get aspirin”.

So, the children help their parents die. But there is no time to mourn, because they must go and seek assistance to arrange a funeral.

REMEMBER THAT WE ARE EACH INDIVIDUALLY ACCOUNTABLE

We have to rise above our differences and combine our efforts to save our people. History will judge us harshly if we fail to do so now, and right now. Nelson Mandela

 

[guanophore]

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.

Which begs the question, Grace Seeker. Why are you on this forum?

 

[MrS]

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.

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.

but they were “against” each other… and they divided…

wassup up with that… ??? Well, it is not of the Holy Spirit

 

[MrS]

Based on the title, it seems to be a discussion of whether or not the Catholic Church is just another denomination. My opinion is “Yes, it is.” Others seem to want more than just my “Yes” of “No” answer. And as I have time, I have been willing to oblige them. In the course of answering the questions, I have also asked a few questions of my own to better my understanding of how and why those Catholics who do, see themselves as the exclusive inheritors of Christ’s promise to found a Church. I think others are doing basically the same thing from their respective positions. That’s what I see this thread as being about. What do you see it to be about?

I have seen that too, though I did not experienced it personally as you have. I think it is a shame. Though I never felt them to accurately portray Roman Catholicism, I regret I ever found Jack Chick tracts even interesting to read. To ever accept a portrayal of another Christian as anything less than the brother or sister in Christ that they are is a sin. On behalf of all of us who have been guilt of this toward Catholics, I am heartily sorry, and beseech you to accept our true repentance and grant us forgiveness./quote]

That is fine and generous… God Bless you.

As for Jack Chick and his “former priest” cohort… God will deal with them.

.

 

[RNRobert]

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.

But would the Holy Spirit really lead one group of Christians to teach one thing, lead another group to teach the opposite. Scripture tells us God is not the author of confusion. Paul also tells us in Ephesians that there is ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE Baptism. Can you tell me that really exists in Christianity today?

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.

I believe that Protestants are Christians, andf are trying to serve Jesus to the best of their ability, but do really believe Christ wanted his Church to be fragmented into thousands of squabbling, conflicting, denominations? How can a bunch of fractured, contradicting sects be an example of unity to an unbelieving world? Somebody (I think it was C.S. Lewis) said something to the effect about a pagan saying to various missionaries “Go and figure out which one of you is right, then come back and talk to me.” As a new Christian trying to find a church home years ago, I was dismayed by all the different churches, all claiming to be right, and came close to chucking my belief in Christ all together because of this.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

but they were “against” each other… and they divided…

wassup up with that… ??? Well, it is not of the Holy Spirit

I would concur. It was not all of the Holy Spirit.

I will quite readily admit that one of the problems of protestantism, is not that of protesting, but that people turn to their conscience as their guide. Some people (mistakenly in my opinion) think that their conscience is the same as the Holy Spirit. I do not. But that protestants have erred in the way or their ability to follow the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not guiding them any more than the failings in the Catholic Church make it a false religion. It just shows that both have men (and sometimes women) in positions of earthly leadership.

 

[Harpazo]

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.

Oy, I’m fairly certain there is much disorder now. We must be living in two different worlds. Ask any non-Christian looking on from the outside. All they will tell you that they see is disorder and bickering within Christianity. Those like Calvin, and John Wesley did not make things any easier by furthuring those divisions. And they are led by the Holy Spirit to this day? Hmmm…

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[Grace_Seeker]

But would the Holy Spirit really lead one group of Christians to teach one thing, lead another group to teach the opposite. Scripture tells us God is not the author of confusion. Paul also tells us in Ephesians that there is ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE Baptism. Can you tell me that really exists in Christianity today?

I believe that Protestants are Christians, andf are trying to serve Jesus to the best of their ability, but do really believe Christ wanted his Church to be fragmented into thousands of squabbling, conflicting, denominations? How can a bunch of fractured, contradicting sects be an example of unity to an unbelieving world? Somebody (I think it was C.S. Lewis) said something to the effect about a pagan saying to various missionaries “Go and figure out which one of you is right, then come back and talk to me.” As a new Christian trying to find a church home years ago, I was dismayed by all the different churches, all claiming to be right, and came close to chucking my belief in Christ all together because of this.

1. Yes, I really do believe that we do have one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. And yes, I really do believe that this exists in Christianity today – at least most place, even if not here on this forum. (If you are in doubt or have not experienced this and want to learn how, I will be glad to show places where it really does exist.)
2. Does Christ want his Church fragmented? I do think that Christ wants his Church to be diverse. But just as God can take every bad thing and make something good of it, so people can take very gift of God and make something bad of it.

Denominationalism does not have to divide the church, it can simply identify different aspects of the one Church of Jesus Christ and thus allow for the wide array of the way God has created people to be to find that place where than can most comfortably find their fit to worship God and use their unique gifts to the glory of God in the world. I think those that point primarily to our differences and insist on stamping out simply create dissension within the Body of Christ. So, as God is not the author of confusion, then this act which creates it must have some source other than God. And you experienced the result of that in your own spiritual journey.

Imagine with me a different journey, where all the churches claimed not that they were alone right, but that all the churches of Christ could recognize where they were in agreement (and thus the others were also right) on what was key with regard to salvation and basic beliefs in Christ, and that with respect to differences they were tangential and not related to salvation but just different flavors of the faith. Now you may not feel that you can do that. You may feel that everything is primary, or that the differences are such that there is no room for coming together. If that is so, then I guess there will be no unity. I am glad to say that in the communities of which I have been a part, the Church of Jesus Christ has ministered as one Church with different branches under different managements, but all under one single owner, Jesus Christ.

“The common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity” – John XXIII’s first encyclical, Ad Petri cathedram of 1959.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Ask any non-Christian looking on from the outside. All they will tell you that they see is disorder and bickering within Christianity. Those like Calvin, and John Wesley did not make things any easier by furthuring those divisions. And they are led by the Holy Spirit to this day? Hmmm…

In Pax Christi
Andrew

You have pointed fingers well at others. What may I ask are you doing about it, the apparent disorder? Are you pointing out others as different than yourself or are you offering every Christian the right hand of fellowship?

How will those outside the church be moved to understand the church if they see us only willing to offer the hand of fellowship to those who believe exactly as we do and conform to our practices? When we exclude even other Christians from our table of “communion”, what does that say about us?

 

[Harpazo]

You have pointed fingers well at others. What may I ask are you doing about it, the apparent disorder? Are you pointing out others as different than yourself or are you offering every Christian the right hand of fellowship?

How will those outside the church be moved to understand the church if they see us only willing to offer the hand of fellowship to those who believe exactly as we do and conform to our practices? When we exclude even other Christians from our table of “communion”, what does that say about us?

Anyone can come to the Holy Mass. However, for Catholics, it is not social hour. Catholics are very inclusive about Communion, but not to the point where we make it a random symbol celebrated once a month, once a year, etc. If I may say so myself, we take Holy Communion most seriously, so as to not profane the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Should you come to understand what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, you would see why we ask that only those in “communion” with us partake of communion. Others witnessing the Holy Mass might just see it as bread and wine, when it is certainly not.

If you believed what you had in your church was the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, would you allow just any person to come up and take it? Certainly not. St. Paul advised against this in his letter to the Corinthians.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Anyone can come to the Holy Mass. However, for Catholics, it is not social hour. Catholics are very inclusive about Communion, but not to the point where we make it a random symbol celebrated once a month, once a year, etc. If I may say so myself, we take Holy Communion most seriously, so as to not profane the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Should you come to understand what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, you would see why we ask that only those in “communion” with us partake of communion. Others witnessing the Holy Mass might just see it as bread and wine, when it is certainly not.

If you believed what you had in your church was the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, would you allow just any person to come up and take it? Certainly not. St. Paul advised against this in his letter to the Corinthians.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

I do understand that. I may disagree with it, but I understand it. I even respect it and your right (or any churches right) to determine for yourself who is and is not welcome at the table. However, if you are really concerned about unity, there is more than one way to achieve it beside telling everyone else they are wrong and to get back in the fold.

 

[RNRobert]

I do understand that. I may disagree with it, but I understand it. I even respect it and your right (or any churches right) to determine for yourself who is and is not welcome at the table. However, if you are really concerned about unity, there is more than one way to achieve it beside telling everyone else they are wrong and to get back in the fold.

What other way? Or does doctrine simply not matter? Do we attain unity by chucking all except a vague belief in Christ, hold hands and sing Kumbayah? That’s what many ‘ecumenical’ movements seem to come to nowadays.

Also, regarding restricting the Eucharist to those who who are members of the church, in ancient times the second part of the liturgy was restricted to those who had been baptised and were members of the church. Those who were not had to leave.

 

[guanophore]

I do understand that. I may disagree with it, but I understand it. I even respect it and your right (or any churches right) to determine for yourself who is and is not welcome at the table. However, if you are really concerned about unity, there is more than one way to achieve it beside telling everyone else they are wrong and to get back in the fold.

Actually, it is not we determining for ourselves who is welcome. It is not like Catholics police the congregation. We believe what Christ sais at the institution of the Eucharist, and believe that others who do not believe likewise are not “in communion”. I agree with you that it is not helpful to “tell everyone else they are wrong”, but what are you suggesting. Are you suggesting that everyone should be admitted to the sacrament, even those who do not rightly discern the body and blood of the Lord?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

What other way? Or does doctrine simply not matter? Do we attain unity by chucking all except a vague belief in Christ, hold hands and sing Kumbayah? That’s what many ‘ecumenical’ movements seem to come to nowadays.

I have answered that question above: “The common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity”

There are many examples of Christian unity in the world.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Which begs the question, Grace Seeker. Why are you on this forum?

Grace Seeker is saying, from the other side, what many of us understand.

Me, I am on the Forum:

Just for the heck of it
Because it sharpens whatever wits I have
Because I am trying to learn about RCC
Because I wanted to convert to RCC
Because I have an awful fascination with what I am hearing from both sides
Because I have an even more awful fascination with what I am hearing from RCC members
Because while there are times to confront, there are also times to peaceably discuss with others who are thoughtful, sensitive and striving to do right
Because perhaps, just perhaps, we can begin to understand one another, in the name of Christ if we open our minds to the faith of others - not the truth of others, or the Truth of others, or the Absolute Truth of others, but simply the faith of others
Because Christ would expect this of us as brothers and sisters who have been born or who have chosen to live in His name.
Because we are Christians together.

I thank Grace Seeker for making this long journey into a better understanding for all Christians on this Forum. He has not shied away from making his points, but has made them thoughtfully and even prayerfully. I am not sure that he has received the same benefits from those who have responded to him.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think that Paul did have more authority than the “average” believer by virtue of his appointment as an apostle, and as the pastor of the churches that he started. He exercises this authority generously as documented in Acts and in his letters.