The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[guanophore]

I will use Catholic Chruch. For if I use the term The Church, I am referring to more than just those who submit to the authority of the Pope.

I claim that I too am part of the Church, but my bishop is not in Rome.

Most of us do not have a bishop in Rome. Only those that live in Rome, and probably, Vatican City! We all have local bishops, just as it has been since the beginning.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think that the title RCC is only used by people who are non-Catholic and have issues with “Romanness”. the Catholic Church does not see itself this way, and does not teach “Romanness”. The Church’s teachings are all about universal Christendom. I am curious why you think they are not?

When the Catholic Church calls itself THE Church, it implies that there is no other presence of the body of Christ outside of itself. Thus it says that other Christians, though identified in the Catechism as brothers in Christ, are still somehow not part of the body. That is to deny our connection with Christ. Yet we have the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our lives that we do belong to Christ. True universalism would admit that the universe of Christianity is bigger than the world of the Catholic Church.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I will use Catholic Chruch. For if I use the term The Church, I am referring to more than just those who submit to the authority of the Pope.

I claim that I too am part of the Church, but my bishop is not in Rome.

Neither is mine. He’s downtown @ the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception on Pierce & Logan.

 

[guanophore]

When the Catholic Church calls itself THE Church, it implies that there is no other presence of the body of Christ outside of itself.

I can see how it might seem that way to someone who is not educated by the catechism. There is no such implication from within.

Thus it says that other Christians, though identified in the Catechism as brothers in Christ, are still somehow not part of the body.

This is simply an erroneous understanding of the Teachings. I am not sure how you came by these notions, but this is not what the Catholic Church believes or teaches. If you really want to know, you can search in the library here, or read in the catechism. If you have trouble finding the relevant sections, someone here will help you.

That is to deny our connection with Christ. Yet we have the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our lives that we do belong to Christ. True universalism would admit that the universe of Christianity is bigger than the world of the Catholic Church.

If this were true, then you are right, it would deny the connection of other Christians with Christ. I hope your sojourn on this forum will help you understand what the Church truly teaches, instead of what you have been erroneously told or led to believe.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

When the Catholic Church calls itself THE Church, it implies that there is no other presence of the body of Christ outside of itself. Thus it says that other Christians, though identified in the Catechism as brothers in Christ, are still somehow not part of the body. That is to deny our connection with Christ. Yet we have the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our lives that we do belong to Christ. True universalism would admit that the universe of Christianity is bigger than the world of the Catholic Church.

First you’re mad when you claimed the Church to be the Roman Catholic Church, then you’re mad when the Church claims to be the Church. Then you’re mad when the Church claims to be the Catholic Church. What should we call ourselves? Can we use the name the Church of Christ as the Catechism does? What about if we called ourselves the Apostolic Church? The Universal Church? Names don’t really matter since we are the One True Church. We have been called many things over 2,000 years.

 

[jmcrae]

If this were true, then you are right, it would deny the connection of other Christians with Christ. I hope your sojourn on this forum will help you understand what the Church truly teaches, instead of what you have been erroneously told or led to believe.

Don’t bend over too far, there.

Protestants do have a connection with Christ, but they are not in the same kind of relationship that Catholics have, because of the Sacraments.

 

[guanophore]

When the Catholic Church calls itself THE Church, it implies that there is no other presence of the body of Christ outside of itself. Thus it says that other Christians, though identified in the Catechism as brothers in Christ, are still somehow not part of the body. That is to deny our connection with Christ. Yet we have the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our lives that we do belong to Christ. True universalism would admit that the universe of Christianity is bigger than the world of the Catholic Church.

Here is a section of the Teachings:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

Dominus Iesus, 17.

Non-Catholic believers are referred to as separated brethren.

 

[Steadfast]

It turns out that none of these documents are actually binding or authoritative in any way, on anyone - not even members of the ecclesial communities that produced them.

That’s not accurate.

Orthodox Lutherans believe that inasmuch as the Augsburg Confession is the true distillation of Biblical doctrine it is utterly binding upon all those who subscribe to it.

 

[rr1213]

It turns out that none of these documents are actually binding or authoritative in any way, on anyone - not even members of the ecclesial communities that produced them.

What’s binding now and what was binding at the time of their creation is a different issue. Moreover, the Augsburg Confession is part of the Book of Concord which is certainly considered authorative in most Lutheran bodies.

In any event, these declarations showed the mind of the Reformers at the time they were written and I cited them as authority to counter your assertion that the Reformers had “thrown out” Jesus Christ. (Specifically, they were offered to refute your contention that: *“Because when the Protestants split away from the Catholic Church, they renounced all and everything of the Catholic Church, in order to start over from scratch.
‘All and everything’ includes Jesus Christ.” *

 

[rr1213]

No, to use that as a descriptive of the whole Church would make Eastern and Oriental Catholics second-class Catholics. You can use Catholic Church or The Church, to be precise, and we’ll know what you mean.

Sure, as long as you recognize that there are other Churches who are not in communion with Rome who are also Catholic Churches.

Wait, not willing to do that? Then I guess we’ll need to stick with the term “Roman Catholic” in order to properly identify the particular Church we are discussing.

 

[Stephen_C]

Sure, as long as you recognize that there are other Churches who are not in communion with Rome who are also Catholic Churches.

Wait, not willing to do that? Then I guess we’ll need to stick with the term “Roman Catholic” in order to properly identify the particular Church we are discussing.

Nope, A Church not in communion with the the Bishop of Rome is not a part of the Catholic Church. Therefore it is not Catholic.

 

[rr1213]

Nope, A Church not in communion with the the Bishop of Rome is not a part of the Catholic Church. Therefore it is not Catholic.

…according to the doctrine of Roman Catholics…which, of course, is my point.

 

[Stephen_C]

…according to the doctrine of Roman Catholics…which, of course, is my point.

Well since you are outside looking in…you can call us anything you like I guess… Does not make it correct, but you are free to do so.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

First you’re mad when you claimed the Church to be the Roman Catholic Church, then you’re mad when the Church claims to be the Church. Then you’re mad when the Church claims to be the Catholic Church. What should we call ourselves? Can we use the name the Church of Christ as the Catechism does? What about if we called ourselves the Apostolic Church? The Universal Church? Names don’t really matter since we are the One True Church. We have been called many things over 2,000 years.

First, I am not mad at all. I’m not even angry.

Second, I didn’t have any problem with the term the Roman Catholic Church.

Third, I accepted the correction that I should use the term The Catholic Church rather than Roman Catholic Church in reference to that body of believers which sees the Bishop of Rome to be the Prime Minister of their particular gathering of the ecclessia.

I do object to any one group of Christians claiming the exclusive use of the tern The Church, for I think that the Bible gives that name to all Christians who have ever confessed Jesus Christ as both Lord and Savior.

I submit to you that all Christians are part of the One True Church, and no human being has been given the authority from Christ to deny that reality.

 

[jmcrae]

I submit to you that all Christians are part of the One True Church, and no human being has been given the authority from Christ to deny that reality.

Up until 1517, and certainly during the New Testament era, all Christians were part of the One True Church.

But on October 31, 1517, a man named Martin Luther posted a challenge on the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral, and began his exit, his departure, what have you, from that one and only Church, and started up his own. Others (John Calvin, King Henry VIII, Simons Mennos, etc.) followed his example, and here we are today with many different churches; not just the one that Jesus founded in 33 AD.

 

[rr1213]

Up until 1517, and certainly during the New Testament era, all Christians were part of the One True Church.

But on October 31, 1517, a man named Martin Luther posted a challenge on the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral, and began his exit, his departure, what have you, from that one and only Church, and started up his own. Others (John Calvin, King Henry VIII, Simons Mennos, etc.) followed his example, and here we are today with many different churches; not just the one that Jesus founded in 33 AD.

If Martin Luther’s disagreements with the Pope had been limited to the 95 Theses as posted in 1517 I doubt seriously that there would have been schism. Certainly, the disagreements by Luther and the other Reformers eventually extended beyond a proper understanding of purgatory, indulgences and abuses thereof. Nonetheless, there had already been schism with the Oriental Orthodox and Orthodox Churches prior to the Reformation.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Up until 1517, and certainly during the New Testament era, all Christians were part of the One True Church.

But on October 31, 1517, a man named Martin Luther posted a challenge on the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral, and began his exit, his departure, what have you, from that one and only Church, and started up his own. Others (John Calvin, King Henry VIII, Simons Mennos, etc.) followed his example, and here we are today with many different churches; not just the one that Jesus founded in 33 AD.

Yes. And yet, heretical though these groups may be in your view, that does not make them any less a part of the body of Christ spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12. And if part of the body of Christ, then also participants in the one true, holy, apostolic, orthodox, and catholic faith (all small letters, being used a adjectives, not as titles) that means that the whole Church (not the Catholic Church) is composed of these Lutherans, Calvinsits, Anglicans, Mennonites, and others along with Catholics. An assembledge of the entire Church would have to includes us all, not just one sub-section of the Christians.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

double post

 

[jmcrae]

Yes. And yet, heretical though these groups may be in your view, that does not make them any less a part of the body of Christ spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12.

Sorry, no. They separated. They knew at the time that they were separating.

Read the graffitti that they left behind on the churches and statues that they destroyed; it’s all still there. They knew exactly what they were doing - this was not some kind of a misunderstanding or difference of opinion.

 

[guanophore]

Yes. And yet, heretical though these groups may be in your view, that does not make them any less a part of the body of Christ spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12. And if part of the body of Christ, then also participants in the one true, holy, apostolic, orthodox, and catholic faith (all small letters, being used a adjectives, not as titles) that means that the whole Church (not the Catholic Church) is composed of these Lutherans, Calvinsits, Anglicans, Mennonites, and others along with Catholics. An assembledge of the entire Church would have to includes us all, not just one sub-section of the Christians.

The problem with this is that the definition of true church is apostolic succession and unity with the bishop of Rome. I think that most of these groups of christuans would not accept either of those definitions.