The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[Carol_Coombe]

Response by Carol Coombe

Are your saying that, in the light of all the above, that The Catholic Church lost her infallibility? That she is no longer the one true church?

Yes, I would assume that during its infamous period of simony, usury, indulgences, breaking the laws of Christ the Catholic Church indeed showed that it could be infallible in a big way.

But I am not big on issues of infallibility: we do our best within our context, around a core of orthodox belief, and we hope that belief is soundly guided.

It is time to stop calling Churches that quit the authority of the Roman Church ‘Protestants’ (from ‘protest’) or to describe them as ‘non-Catholics’. They are no longer protesting, and they are not non-Catholics: they are what they are in their own right. The RCC is as much a denomination as any other Christian Church of merit.

If they are no longer protesting, then why are they still “quit”? How are they not "non-Catholics?

The protest is complete. Why do you assume that the churches that broke away from the Church of Rome are not established in their own right? The reformed churches have their own beliefs, value systems, rites, dogmas and doctrines. Therefore why call them Protestants? That whole thing happened centuries ago. There is the Catholic paradigm of faith, and there are other completely equal and meritorious paradigms of faith.

Second, why should someone be defined in terms of someone else? I would not call you non-Jewish, or non-woman, or non-green. I would name you by your own name, as you are - a Christian, a man (I think) and pink (probably). There has come a time when we must understand that all Christians are part of the universal body of Christ, and that in terms of merit none is more meritorious than another, no?

(Coombe) Beyond that however, let us think outside our boxes, change our mental landscapes, and create a level playing field here. RCC is no longer ‘king of the castle’ with others coming to it for instruction and advice, or monitoring their own performance against its criteria. It is time to recognise that Christians who do not accept the principal tenets of the Catholic faith are simply themselves - Christians by another name which reflects their own beliefs, drawn from various sources [and please don’t bother to post a reply on cafeteria choices], according to their own environment, needs and cultural contexts.

(guanophore) I also have a problem with that “king of the castle” thinking. Jesus was very clear in His teachings that the one who wants to be the head must be the servant of all. You have noted truthfully that there have been popes that did not live out this teaching in their personal lives, fell into temporal wars, greed, and abandoned their celibate vows. … It seems like your solution is to disregard the notion that Jesus would preserve His church through all this, and that every believer should choose what works best for themselves.

(Coombe) Yes, to lead, one must serve. I cannot accept the notion right now that the Roman Catholic Church is the *only *inheritor of Christ’s divine inspiration, vouchsafed by him to Peter, to the apostles and to the popes. What makes us sure that there is only One True Church, and that that is the RCC? Is it not possible - for me it is - that all Christians, whether in India, China, Burma, Dominica, Nigeria, Canada or Papua New Guinea, are indeed part of the church that Christ established? It is the Christian who counts, and not the hierarchy to which he or she owes allegiance.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

See response below. CEC

 

[Carol_Coombe]

(sterryfamily) Ms Coombe makes the mistake that many theological liberals and relativists do today; viewing the Church’s temporal mission as the only facet of import. [His]

kingdom is the Holy Catholic Church in Heaven, in Purgatory and on Earth.

Such serene, comfortable, righteous faith! I wish I could emulate it.

(Fix) There is one supreme law giver-God. There is one living authority who can relate His truth without error in matters of faith and morals- The Cathilic (sic) Church.

Orthodox certainty. Is there no contradiction between fundamentalists, liberals and conservatives within RCC? Is there no difference between a Catholic from China, Canada, France? There are clearly differences within the Catholic Church; for sure there are differing interpretations of Christ’s life and mission elsewhere.

(VWcrazy) All other churches were created by “some guy”.

Nasty. Please give examples.

(Keikiolu) Your implication that [RCC] authority is not “right” is wrong.

Orthodox certainty again. We have had a heated discussion on CAF about when Christ realized his full divinity, involving radically different teachings of so-called orthodox clerics in different places.

(jam070) Alex Jones wrote: The [CC] has the gifts of perpetuity and incorruptibility. This is the Church of Jesus Christ, and what it teaches is truth!"

Where did the idea that the Church ‘has the gifts or perpetuity and incorruptibility’ originate? There have been periods of corruption. Is it authority that no other Christian community has the gift of perpetuity? And is not the statement ‘this is the Church of Jesus Christ, and what it teaches is truth’ an opinion of the author? Jews, Christians, Moslems all use ‘scriptures’ that are in many aspects identical (the Quran itself includes many books of OT/NT).

(jmcrae] But God cannot bless things that are not

true [ie they differ from] actual God-given Truth of His own Church.

Oh gosh, God can do anything. You assume He would bless things that are not true: please give examples. Do other Christian denominations, other faiths, not have any intelligent insight into the nature of God and Christ, his mission, the practical application his example, into the nature of ‘life everlasting’, into the extent of God’s creation (this tiny planet Earth vs the awesome universe/multiverse He commands, for example)?

(jam 070…) It is the church God established: the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church!

See missal: one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. There is a big difference in meaning which I have written about elsewhere.

(Jack Hawkins) The c

atholic 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. Yes, please.

(mikew262) You believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that it’s the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church that has God’s official stamp of approval.

It seems so, sadly.

I believe, while (CC) is the primary church of Christianity … it doesn’t mean that God does not recognize the other churches of Christianity, and extend his blessing to them as well.

Amen

Whatever denomination we belong to depends on what our conscience and faith directs. … Such disrespect for your fellow Christians.

Pray for us.

Blessings, Carol

 

[Carol_Coombe]

To say this (the catholic church is not the Roman Catholic Church), it seems to negate itself. The Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. It’s been like that since the Day of Pentecost.

catholic (no capital) = wide-ranging, broad, far-reaching, all-embracing, extensive, varied.

There is an important distinction - especially in terms of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, which use the uncapitalised version.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I think that most protestants are truly and genuinely ignorant of the history and nature of Cathocism. A lot of error is taught about what the Church believes and proclaims, so their refusal to enter or remain is based on a lack of knowlege.

And a sense of fear or inadequacy. The arrogance, the general tenor of some of the postings on this thread so far indicate that there is such a strong sense of being ‘right’, being ‘king of the Christian castle’ that even asking questions becomes a serious challenge. I know: I have been through it here.

Blessings

 

[jam070406]

And a sense of fear or inadequacy. The arrogance, the general tenor of some of the postings on this thread so far indicate that there is such a strong sense of being ‘right’, being ‘king of the Christian castle’ that even asking questions becomes a serious challenge. I know: I have been through it here.

Blessings

so jumping into the thread to self righteously judge eveyone within the thread solves everything, eh?
people were speaking out of zeal and passion for their faith.
remember we’re all sinners, including you.
comments like, “being king of the Christian castle” are uncalled for. the whole topic of the post was intended to cause debate. passions can run high in such a topic.
it’s not about being right. it’s about uncovering truth. i’ve said things i regret and i’ve apologized. and i’ll apologize again. but somehow i don’t think you care because you only intended to judge others with your comments.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I would assume that during its infamous period of simony, usury, indulgences, breaking the laws of Christ the Catholic Church indeed showed that it could be infallible in a big way.

But I am not big on issues of infallibility: we do our best within our context, around a core of orthodox belief, and we hope that belief is soundly guided.

If she has lost her infallibility, then she is no longer a sound guide,and should be rejected as well. It also means that Jesus is weak,a nd unable to keep His promises. If that is true,He should be rejected also.

The protest is complete. Why do you assume that the churches that broke away from the Church of Rome are not established in their own right? The reformed churches have their own beliefs, value systems, rites, dogmas and doctrines. Therefore why call them Protestants? That whole thing happened centuries ago. There is the Catholic paradigm of faith, and there are other completely equal and meritorious paradigms of faith.

I assume no such thing! Yes, they have theri own beliefs, value systems, rites, dogmas adn doctrines. I call them Protestants because these establishments are not in communion with the bishop of Rome. The protest the authority of the magesterum, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome. I do not consider other “offshoots” completely equal, though I cannot deny that they are meritorious. If you believe they are, why become a Catholic?

Second, why should someone be defined in terms of someone else? I would not call you non-Jewish, or non-woman, or non-green. I would name you by your own name, as you are - a Christian, a man (I think) and pink (probably). There has come a time when we must understand that all Christians are part of the universal body of Christ, and that in terms of merit none is more meritorious than another, no?

It may be a reflection of our smallness and culturally mindedness. Where I live and work, the majority are native american, and I am a “non-indian”. I do not take it as an insult, just a fact. Yes, I am a little too pink,not having gotten enough sun for months. However, I do agree with you that all Christians are part of the universal body ofChrist. The “merit” lies in what Christ teaches, and the more people are not consistent with it, the further they are from the merit.

Yes, to lead, one must serve. I cannot accept the notion right now that the Roman Catholic Church is the *only *inheritor of Christ’s divine inspiration, vouchsafed by him to Peter, to the apostles and to the popes. What makes us sure that there is only One True Church, and that that is the RCC? Is it not possible - for me it is - that all Christians, whether in India, China, Burma, Dominica, Nigeria, Canada or Papua New Guinea, are indeed part of the church that Christ established? It is the Christian who counts, and not the hierarchy to which he or she owes allegiance.

Blessings

You are right, and the Catholic church affirms the authenticity of the working of the Holy Spirit within the non-Catholic religions. The church also teaches that all Christians everywhere are part of the church that Christ established. However, we are not all unified, because not all recognize the deposit of faith.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

so jumping into the thread to self righteously judge eveyone within the thread solves everything, eh?
people were speaking out of zeal and passion for their faith.
remember we’re all sinners, including you.
comments like, “being king of the Christian castle” are uncalled for. the whole topic of the post was intended to cause debate. passions can run high in such a topic.
it’s not about being right. it’s about uncovering truth. i’ve said things i regret and i’ve apologized. and i’ll apologize again. but somehow i don’t think you care because you only intended to judge others with your comments.

Thanks for this. I actually started the thread, and so am not jumping in - just for information. I am not self-righteously judging anyone at all, because I do not believe that is correct Christian behaviour. You will note I am asking questions of people who are 100 per cent sure that their definition, their understanding of RCC dominance, is correct. That is a hard brick wall to be dashing one’s head against. It would be nice if it were true, but I *think *it is not, to be fair to other Christians.

Do you think that no others have zeal and passion for their faith? Do you think that I am arrogant enough to think that I am not a sinner? Where is the arrogance in this thread, if not from those who are so sure of their beliefs that they have failed to question them at all and cannot engage in a discussion as a result?

I feel utterly dispationate about this debate: it is of intellectual interest, because the outcome has little to do with my own sense of the Presence of God, my commitment as an active Christian working under impossible conditions, and my eagerness to learn.

I am not commenting; I am asking. I appreciate those who are honest in their answers; I do not sympathise with those who give something approximating a knee-jerk reaction to what I write. It is not useful. *This is the truth, *they seem to say, and if you do not like it, push off, or we will not be nice to you. This is our belief; we are not interested in yours, as ours is 100 per cent correct and authoritative. As you have disregarded our advice, you are not actually part of the real Christian community.

Well, real or not, I am trying very hard to make a conversion to Catholicism, and you and your ilk are making it a bit tough. Someone earlier in the thread commented on a sense of arrogance running through this theme, and I think it is not necessarily on the side of the questers.

I regret that this is not the answer you are looking for. I don’t know you and you don’t know me. So we had better perhaps, neither of us, judge not that we be not judged.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

Carol_Coombe:
Where did the idea that the Church ‘has the gifts or perpetuity and incorruptibility’ originate? There have been periods of corruption. Is it authority that no other Christian community has the gift of perpetuity? And is not the statement ‘this is the Church of Jesus Christ, and what it teaches is truth’ an opinion of the author?

From the words of Jesus.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401clas.asp

 

[Carol_Coombe]

catholic (no capital) = wide-ranging, broad, far-reaching, all-embracing, extensive, varied.

There is an important distinction - especially in terms of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, which use the uncapitalised version.

We have a lot of opinions on this thread, but not much of substance. I noted the use of the word catholic/Catholic in two different ways.

Is there no one who would care to take this on - or add something else of substance. Opinions are interesting but I am not sure they move us forward.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I wonder also if it was right to title this thread: The Catholic Church is just another denomination? That in itself is probably like waving a red flag at a bull. There was no challenge meant originally, and there should never have been a challenge. This is meant to be an exchange of ideas, a discussion on the issue.

It should have been named: The Catholic Church is one of a number of Christian denominations within the faith. That is what was intended, moderator please note.

Blessings

 

[fix]

catholic (no capital) = wide-ranging, broad, far-reaching, all-embracing, extensive, varied.

There is an important distinction - especially in terms of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, which use the uncapitalised version.

We have a lot of opinions on this thread, but not much of substance. I noted the use of the word catholic/Catholic in two different ways.

Is there no one who would care to take this on - or add something else of substance. Opinions are interesting but I am not sure they move us forward.

Are you saying there are two separate Catholic Churches? There is only one Catholic Church. One may be a formal memeber or one may be joined in some other way, but in both situations:

**779 **The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. That is her mystery, which only faith can accept.

 

[jam070406]

Thanks for this. I actually started the thread, and so am not jumping in - just for information. I am not self-righteously judging anyone at all, because I do not believe that is correct Christian behaviour. You will note I am asking questions of people who are 100 per cent sure that their definition, their understanding of RCC dominance, is correct. That is a hard brick wall to be dashing one’s head against. It would be nice if it were true, but I *think *it is not, to be fair to other Christians.

Do you think that no others have zeal and passion for their faith? Do you think that I am arrogant enough to think that I am not a sinner? Where is the arrogance in this thread, if not from those who are so sure of their beliefs that they have failed to question them at all and cannot engage in a discussion as a result?

I feel utterly dispationate about this debate: it is of intellectual interest, because the outcome has little to do with my own sense of the Presence of God, my commitment as an active Christian working under impossible conditions, and my eagerness to learn.

I am not commenting; I am asking. I appreciate those who are honest in their answers; I do not sympathise with those who give something approximating a knee-jerk reaction to what I write. It is not useful. *This is the truth, *they seem to say, and if you do not like it, push off, or we will not be nice to you. This is our belief; we are not interested in yours, as ours is 100 per cent correct and authoritative. As you have disregarded our advice, you are not actually part of the real Christian community.

Well, real or not, I am trying very hard to make a conversion to Catholicism, and you and your ilk are making it a bit tough. Someone earlier in the thread commented on a sense of arrogance running through this theme, and I think it is not necessarily on the side of the questers.

I regret that this is not the answer you are looking for. I don’t know you and you don’t know me. So we had better perhaps, neither of us, judge not that we be not judged.

Blessings

Carol,
please accept my apology. you are right in alot of the things you have said. i do jump to knee jerk reactions sometimes. it is emotionally driven. i am truly sorry and thank you for showing me that i have not been acting Christ-like. please don’t stop your quest of the Roman Catholic Church. and i will do my best (with the grace of God) to resist the temptations to let my pride take over and cause confrontation. i am a sinner. you and whoever else i have offended, please forgive me.
many blessings!

 

[jmcrae]

catholic (no capital) = wide-ranging, broad, far-reaching, all-embracing, extensive, varied.

There is an important distinction - especially in terms of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, which use the uncapitalised version.

We have a lot of opinions on this thread, but not much of substance. I noted the use of the word catholic/Catholic in two different ways.

Is there no one who would care to take this on - or add something else of substance. Opinions are interesting but I am not sure they move us forward.

When the Apostles and their successors wrote the Creeds, they used the Greek alphabet. They had no “upper case” or “lower case” letters to work with - and it was okay, because Catholic (the name of a religion) and catholic (the description of a religion) referred to exactly the same thing, anyway - the Church that Christ founded.

Did Christ establish more than one Church? John 17 indicates not - that, indeed, Christ forbade the creation of new “off-shoot” religions from Christianity, and prayed to the Father that such a thing would not ever happen.

Sadly, it did. But Christ remains steadfastly united with His Church, and continues to protect her like a Bride throughout time and space.

quote There is one supreme law giver-God. There is one living authority who can relate His truth without error in matters of faith and morals- The Cathilic (sic) Church.

Orthodox certainty. Is there no contradiction between fundamentalists, liberals and conservatives within RCC? Is there no difference between a Catholic from China, Canada, France? There are clearly differences within the Catholic Church; for sure there are differing interpretations of Christ’s life and mission elsewhere.

[/quote]

We all follow the same priests, Bishops and Pope.

We all teach and learn from the same Catechism, read from the same Bible, and (according to our state in life) obey the same set of precepts and canon law.

We share the same Sunday Liturgy - no matter where you go in the world, your nearest Catholic Church will be reading the exact same set of readings as my parish church just down the street here, and the most lost little Catholic parish out in the middle of nowhere out among the Inuits, or in remotest China. They will also pray the same prayers, in the same order, and recite the same Creed.

When we pray the Divine Office, whether alone or in a group, the prayers we pray are the same prayers that everyone else doing this prayer is praying during that hour.

quote All other churches were created by “some guy”.

Nasty. Please give examples.
[/quote]

Lutheran - Martin Luther in 1521.
Mennonites - Simons Menno in 1525.
Anglicans - King Henry VIII in 1533.
Presbyterians - John Knox in 1560.
Baptist - John Smyth in 1609.
Methodist - John and Charles Wesley in 1729.
Episcopalians - Samuel Seaburyin 1789.
Church of Christ - Thomas Campbell in 1807
Seventh Day Adventists- Ellen White in 1860.
Salvation Army- William Booth in 1865.
Christian Scientist- Mary Baker in 1879
Pentecostal - Charles Fox in 1901
Fundamentalism (also known as “non-denominationalism”)- The Milton brothers and Lyman Steward in 1915.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Are you saying there are two separate Catholic Churches? There is only one Catholic Church.

Yes, there is only one Catholic Church, or Roman Catholic Church, or Church of Rome.

But in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, we say: We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I am emphasising that when we say this, we do NOT mean the Roman Catholic Church, but the universal, all-embracing body of Christian believers, which has come to us through the apostolic succession. That is, I believe, the much broader and correct definition catholic used in the Creeds. But perhaps not many members of RCC are aware of this.

*Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol,
please accept my apology…i will do my best (with the grace of God) to resist the temptations to let my pride take over and cause confrontation. i am a sinner. you and whoever else i have offended, please forgive me.
many blessings!

Well don’t apologise too much, because I tend to be as prideful as the next person, and am probably far more arrogant and confrontational than you could even imagine. It is not hard for me to say sorry, but I now refuse to feel guilty for every mistake I make, and I do not consider every mistake or character flaw a sin. So be at peace with yourself: you are one with God.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

When the Apostles and their successors wrote the Creeds, they used the Greek alphabet. They had no “upper case” or “lower case” letters to work with - and it was okay, because Catholic (the name of a religion) and catholic (the description of a religion) referred to exactly the same thing, anyway - the Church that Christ founded.

Quite apart from the religious terminology, there are two words: Catholic and catholic, and while the earlier version of the Creed used the capitalised form, the current version uses the lower case form, as I understand it, to accommodate the wishes of the Anglican Church - and perhaps others. So both exist, and they are different. It is not a proof-reading error in the missal.

We all follow the same priests, Bishops and Pope.

We all teach and learn from the same Catechism, read from the same Bible, and (according to our state in life) obey the same set of precepts and canon law.

We share the same Sunday Liturgy - no matter where you go in the world, your nearest Catholic Church will be reading the exact same set of readings as my parish church just down the street here, and the most lost little Catholic parish out in the middle of nowhere out among the Inuits, or in remotest China. They will also pray the same prayers, in the same order, and recite the same Creed.

When we pray the Divine Office, whether alone or in a group, the prayers we pray are the same prayers that everyone else doing this prayer is praying during that hour.

This is a hugely helpful sketch of the operation of the RCC globally. It would be helpful to mention as well that although the Vatican issues Catholic ‘policy’ as it were, it is the Bishops who are charged with interpreting it to diocesan priests, who then deliver to congregants. That allows for contextual variations.

You have given some of the principal reasons for my wishing to become a member of the Catholic Church.

Lutheran - Martin Luther in 1521.
Mennonites - Simons Menno in 1525.
Anglicans - King Henry VIII in 1533.
Presbyterians - John Knox in 1560.
Baptist - John Smyth in 1609.
Methodist - John and Charles Wesley in 1729.
Episcopalians - Samuel Seaburyin 1789.
Church of Christ - Thomas Campbell in 1807
Seventh Day Adventists- Ellen White in 1860.
Salvation Army- William Booth in 1865.
Christian Scientist- Mary Baker in 1879
Pentecostal - Charles Fox in 1901
Fundamentalism (also known as “non-denominationalism”)- The Milton brothers and Lyman Steward in 1915.

And then you go and commit this grotesquery! I jibbed at the use of the derogatory phrase ‘some guy’ by ‘some guy’ posting an opinion - and then you make a list of people who you presumably consider examples of ‘some guy’. You are talking about some of the greatest Christians of our age, believe it or not: Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley and others. These are the ‘saints’ of the reformed churches, and perhaps without them the RCC would be a very different church today, having had to be levered out of its pit of dissolution as it were in the 16th century or thereabouts. They were the ones who ensured that we had Bibles in the vernacular, rather than in Latin, and had access - of the kind Catholics have had since Vatican II only 40 years ago - to the words of faith.

I believe devoutly that many of ‘these guys’ have been participants in the apostolic succession, as much as any pope, which is why many reformed churches are able to use the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed with its reference to the apostolic succession. I thought you were more sensitive to this kind of thing! But thank you for the list.

Blessings

 

[jmcrae]

Quite apart from the religious terminology, there are two words: Catholic and catholic, and while the earlier version of the Creed used the capitalised form, the current version uses the lower case form, as I understand it, to accommodate the wishes of the Anglican Church - and perhaps others. So both exist, and they are different. It is not a proof-reading error in the missal.

The “Catholic Church” is the Church that succeeds in unbroken order from Peter (the chief Apostle of Jesus Christ) to the Pope in Rome.

I don’t know what the Anglicans have to do with it: they are a separate organization. Anglicanism began in the 16th century.

This is a hugely helpful sketch of the operation of the RCC globally. It would be helpful to mention as well that although the Vatican issues Catholic ‘policy’ as it were, it is the Bishops who are charged with interpreting it to diocesan priests, who then deliver to congregants. That allows for contextual variations.

This is true, which is why we belong to the particular Church (our Diocese) and the Universal Church (headed in Rome).

And then you go and commit this grotesquery! I jibbed at the use of the derogatory phrase ‘some guy’ by ‘some guy’ posting an opinion - and then you make a list of people who you presumably consider examples of ‘some guy’. You are talking about some of the greatest Christians of our age, believe it or not: Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley and others. These are the ‘saints’ of the reformed churches, and perhaps without them the RCC would be a very different church today, having had to be levered out of its pit of dissolution as it were in the 16th century or thereabouts.

I’d like to hope that they were doing their very best under difficult circumstances, but I don’t think these men were “Saints” in the sense of worthy for Christians to imitate. We are called to follow Jesus in His Church and take up the Cross; not to give up on His and start our own, instead.

They were the ones who ensured that we had Bibles in the vernacular, rather than in Latin, and had access - of the kind Catholics have had since Vatican II only 40 years ago - to the words of faith.

We have had Bibles in the vernacular since the 5th century (Bibles in Latin since the 4th century: before that, we had the individual books in their original languages, but no set canon of Scripture), and we’ve had access to the Word of God in our own language through the oral tradition in every language in the known world, for more than 2,000 years now.

The Sunday gathering at Mass is not the be all and end all of the Catholic faith, by the way, so even those few who didn’t understand Latin, or couldn’t read the interlinear translation in the Latin missal could still learn its meaning. We also have (and always have had) Catechism classes, prayer groups, Bible study groups, guided retreats, and many other opportunities to learn our faith.

In medieval times, before the Reformation, there were also parades, outdoor pageants, puppet plays, travelling musicians, paintings, stained glass windows, statues, holy cards, and many other methods of teaching the faith.

I believe devoutly that many of ‘these guys’ have been participants in the apostolic succession, as much as any pope, which is why many reformed churches are able to use the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed with its reference to the apostolic succession. I thought you were more sensitive to this kind of thing! But thank you for the list.

You might like to investigate the history of the Reformation in a bit more detail.

I have been to many of these “historic sites,” and they aren’t very pretty. For example, at St. Andrew’s in Scotland, John Knox and his followers physically decapitated all of the statues of the Apostles and wrote hateful graffitti on them about their local Bishop and about the Pope. I’m sorry, but I don’t think they even intended to retain Apostolic Succession, and I don’t think it’s any accident, or any clumsy oversight on their part, that they lost it. Based on what they wrote on the statues, I think they deliberately threw it away.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The “Catholic Church” is the Church that succeeds in unbroken order from Peter (the chief Apostle of Jesus Christ) to the Pope in Rome.

I don’t know what the Anglicans have to do with it: they are a separate organization. Anglicanism began in the 16th century.

While I abhor the way in which the Church of England was established, it was and is still in the line of accession. That is my understanding.

I’d like to hope that they were doing their very best under difficult circumstances, but I don’t think these men were “Saints” in the sense of worthy for Christians to imitate. We are called to follow Jesus in His Church and take up the Cross; not to give up on His and start our own, instead.

I did not mean to imply that they were saints, in communions where there are no saints. But they wre ‘men of God’, led often by the Holy Spirit, and they helped to order our beliefs, made sure that we had the Bible in the vernacular and could be blessed directly by God’s insights, mentored by pastors, ministers and priests, with more emphasis on mentoring than on instruction.

We might also assume that is was these people, and people of their kind, who in their own way helped to lever the RCC out of its massive corruption in th 16th century, without worrying about recompense. I regret the witch-hunts by Henry’s Church of England against Catholics, but that was that king , a very different character from some of the others mentioned as ‘other guys’.

We have had Bibles in the vernacular since the 5th century (Bibles in Latin since the 4th century: before that, we had the individual books in their original languages, but no set canon of Scripture), and we’ve had access to the Word of God in our own language through the oral tradition in every language in the known world, for more than 2,000 years now.

Oral tradition is remarkably susceptible to error, as we have learned througout the Scriptures. And what influence did believers’ understanding, gained through the Vulgate, have when it was up against the official Latin inheritance from ancient times, and the Hebrews. Reformed church membes had direct access to the love of God in great intimacy, and there were important insights gained thereby which influence us all today.

The Sunday gathering at Mass is not the be all and end all of the Catholic faith, by the way, so even those few who didn’t understand Latin, or couldn’t read the interlinear translation in the Latin missal could still learn its meaning. We also have (and always have had) Catechism classes, prayer groups, Bible study groups, guided retreats, and many other opportunities to learn our faith.

I love taking advantage of all the activities for learning under way in our Catholic Church. But I also read: Albert Nolan on Christ’s nature and mision, Henri Nouwen on the brokenness and woundedness of many believers of the Catholic faith, Jean Vanier on easing the suffering of the disadvantaged, and Marcus Borg on our understanding of Christ today, in view of new information, fact, analysis and hypothoses. I often tend not to let someon else do it for me, and perhaps that is a sin remaining from my previous incarnation. Reading beyond the scriptures leads to intimations of grace, the sweetness of Christ’s nature, his need for islation and intimate communication with his Father, inter alia.

You might like to investigate the history of the Reformation in a bit more detail.

Thanks, I am a historian, and have studied the period in some detail, at various times in my life. Perhaps it is time to look at it from the point of view of RCC. So I shall plod on.

I have been to many of these “historic sites,” and they aren’t very pretty. For example, at St. Andrew’s in Scotland, John Knox and his followers physically decapitated all of the statues of the Apostles and wrote hateful graffitti on them about their local Bishop and about the Pope. I’m sorry, but I don’t think they even intended to retain Apostolic Succession, and I don’t think it’s any accident, or any clumsy oversight on their part, that they lost it. Based on what they wrote on the statues, I think they deliberately threw it away.

We could trade awfulnesses: the Crusades, Torquemada, the Inquisition in Spain inter alia. I am not sure it would serve any purpose. We have seen from this thread that there are those who think and discuss and those who do not.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments,

Blessings

 

[Keikiolu]

And a sense of fear or inadequacy. The arrogance, the general tenor of some of the postings on this thread so far indicate that there is such a strong sense of being ‘right’, being ‘king of the Christian castle’ that even asking questions becomes a serious challenge. I know: I have been through it here.

Blessings

If you do not think that you are “right” in your choice of religion, as many Catholics are who truly believe the tenets of their religion, which teaches them (us) that we are indeed the true Church of Jesus, then you are free to consider our certainty as “arrogance” and “self-righteousness”, as I’m sure you do anyway.

The issue is YOUR conviction that YOU are right in what you believe.

If you are fully confident that you are right, for no other reason that “no one could possibly be COMPLETELY right”, then you might want to find out why we are actually fully confident that we are completely right.

If you’re happy in your uncertainty, best to you…!

If people who are certain bother you, then either learn to love the “bothering” or avoid that which bothers you.

Hopefully, you’ll get used to it,… which’ll give us an opportunity to make a FULL Christian out of 'ya…!!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.