The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[DobleGG]

This is my first thread or response that I will place in this forum. I am a Catholic, but a poorly catechized Catholic at best. Be that as it may, it appears to me that this discussion (like many other Catholic/Protestant issues) can go round and round and never end. To me, what it all boils down to is simply this:

One’s acceptance or rejection of the authority bestowed upon the Catholic Church by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as written in holy scripture.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Is Tobit understood as being on par with Genesis? Or are they seen has books that have historical relevance and are valued, but not in the same way as the writings of Paul are valued?

Fine. But you asked why I was here? Answer: To ask and get the answer to one spefic question.
You asked if I had gotten that answer yet? Answer: No,
And then you raised the very topic that was my question. And since I hadn’t gotten it yet, I thought (as long as you brought it up) maybe you would be willing to answer it for me yourserlf, and here where you brought the topic up.

I was just looking for the Catholic understanding regarding it, not to debate it.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank-you for using the term “we”, I’m hoping by that you meant that you and I, as fellow Christians, have a common enemy. And that the “we” was not referring just to you and other Catholics.

He is the enemy of the entire human race.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

This is my first thread or response that I will place in this forum. I am a Catholic, but a poorly catechized Catholic at best. Be that as it may, it appears to me that this discussion (like many other Catholic/Protestant issues) can go round and round and never end. To me, what it all boils down to is simply this:

One’s acceptance or rejection of the authority bestowed upon the Catholic Church by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as written in holy scripture.

You’re right it will go round and round. And part of the reason is because you just made an assumption in your statement, an assumption which I don’t believe ever was true, that assumption being that what you think of as the Catholic Church was ever spoken of at all, one way or the other, in scripture. Jesus spoke of the Church, not the Catholic Church. In my way of thinking the Catholic Church is one subset within the Church which Jesus established. It is not the whole of the Church. Perhaps, as Guanophore sees that the “we” of jmcrae’s post includes both Protestant and Catholic, then we are not so far apart on this belief. But I have yet to hear jmcrae’s response to the question, and wonder if it will be the same or different from Guanophore.

Guanophore wants unity. Unity does not have to be a demand to return to the fold. It can be a recognition that we are all still one in Christ. That, even if we have different earthly overseers, Christ is still the head of us all. And no one group has a greater claim to Christ than another. Don’t know that it is intentional, but you need to hear that from my perspecitve much of this discussion has sounded like a put down of Protestants as being lesser children of God.

If you are in the right and we are in the wrong, what do you have to lose with taking time to actually hear and seek to understand our protestations rather than merely condemn them?

I was asked: “Since we agree that Christ want us to be one, what can be done to fix this?” I made a few suggestions, but none of the responses have been to that which I wrote in response to that, they have all been an attack on other places at which we are apparently different trying to get me to conform.

Hint: If I was a conformist, I wouldn’t be a protestant would I?

 

[jmcrae]

I know the history of how the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees were included in the Catholic Bible and left out of the Protestant Bible. My quesiton has to do with the weight given them. Is Tobit understood as being on par with Genesis? Or are they seen has books that have historical relevance and are valued, but not in the same way as the writings of Paul are valued?

Yes, all of the Books of the Bible are equally Inspired, although there are many different forms of writing - the Book of Tobit is considered to be wisdom literature, along the same lines as the Book of Job and the Book of Esther. They are of equal authority with the rest of the Bible, and they are used with the same frequency as the other Books of Wisdom.

All of these books were in the set of scrolls that Jesus and the Apostles used. They were not removed from the Hebrew canon of Scriptures until the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, which also rejected the books of the New Testamant for the same reasons - the appearance of support for the idea that Jesus was the Messiah of God, and clear textual support for His teachings and the teachings of the Apostles.

But the Church retained the 46-book set of scrolls that the Apostles had been using, and this is what became the Christian Old Testament, up until some time in the early 1600s, when Protestants rejected the deuterocanon of the Old Testament, for whatever reasons, which, no, no one has ever been able to explain to me - because if you are going to reject a third of the Old Testament because of the Council of Jamnia, then why not reject the entire New Testament, as well?

Since the reasons that apply to the deuterocanon also apply to the New Testament. (Written in Greek, written after the time of Enoch, etc.)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Yes, all of the Books of the Bible are equally Inspired, although there are many different forms of writing - the Book of Tobit is considered to be wisdom literature, along the same lines as the Book of Job and the Book of Esther. They are of equal authority with the rest of the Bible, and they are used with the same frequency as the other Books of Wisdom.

All of these books were in the set of scrolls that Jesus and the Apostles used. They were not removed from the Hebrew canon of Scriptures until the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, which also rejected the books of the New Testamant for the same reasons - the appearance of support for the idea that Jesus was the Messiah of God, and clear textual support for His teachings and the teachings of the Apostles.

But the Church retained the 46-book set of scrolls that the Apostles had been using, and this is what became the Christian Old Testament, up until some time in the early 1600s, when Protestants rejected the deuterocanon of the Old Testament, for whatever reasons, which, no, no one has ever been able to explain to me - because if you are going to reject a third of the Old Testament because of the Council of Jamnia, then why not reject the entire New Testament, as well?

Since the reasons that apply to the deuterocanon also apply to the New Testament. (Written in Greek, written after the time of Enoch, etc.)

Thank-you for this answer.

It appears that the reasons for the Reformers rejecting the Deuterocanon have been explained to you. You don’t accept that argument, and you may indeed be using better reasoning for accepting them than they did for not. As I said, I won’t debate that here. I just appreciate your answer.

It saddens me to think that you see me as so far outside of what your standard is for being a brother or sister in Christ that you can only accept me as a fellow member of the human race and not a fellow member of the body of Christ. But if that is the case that, whether you understand it or not, is of your making not mine. I am quite happy to acknowledge all who worship Jesus as their Lord and Savior as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[DobleGG]

It is my understanding that Catholics believe that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ…just separated. However, it should not stop any of us from continually praying for unity in faith as written in scripture…“that they may all be one.”

 

[jmcrae]

Thank-you for this answer.

It appears that the reasons for the Reformers rejecting the Deuterocanon have been explained to you. You don’t accept that argument, and you may indeed be using better reasoning for accepting them than they did for not. As I said, I won’t debate that here. I just appreciate your answer.

You’re welcome.

It saddens me to think that you see me as so far outside of what your standard is for being a brother or sister in Christ that you can only accept me as a fellow member of the human race and not a fellow member of the body of Christ.

Someone who has rejected Christ’s Church in the full knowledge that Christ founded a Church and this is the one, has, in rejecting His Church, rejected His authority and lordship in their lives. Which is the same thing as rejecting Christ.

But if that is the case that, whether you understand it or not, is of your making not mine. I am quite happy to acknowledge all who worship Jesus as their Lord and Savior as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

The majority of modern-day Protestants have absolutely no idea that Christ ever founded a Church at all, let alone which one, since their leaders re-interpret all the verses about His Church into some sort of hyper-spiritualized “invisible assembly of believers” and since they have no way of knowing that their leaders were not appointed by Christ, they are not guilty of believing falsehoods, because they have no way of knowing that these are falsehoods. These Protestants are my brothers and sisters in Christ, not because of being Protestant (which is a bad thing) but because Protestantism is the best they can do with what they have (which is a good thing, and sufficient for salvation in their case, because we are all called to do our best.)

But someone who knows for a fact that Christ founded an actual, visible Church organization, and knows which one it is, but remains outside of it out of stubbornness, or out of fear of human opinions, is standing on rather dangerous ground, as best I can figure it.

That’s all I can say about that.

 

[guanophore]

This is my first thread or response that I will place in this forum. I am a Catholic, but a poorly catechized Catholic at best. Be that as it may, it appears to me that this discussion (like many other Catholic/Protestant issues) can go round and round and never end. To me, what it all boils down to is simply this:

One’s acceptance or rejection of the authority bestowed upon the Catholic Church by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as written in holy scripture.

 And part of the reason is because you just made an assumption in your statement, an assumption which I don't believe ever was true, that assumption being that what you think of as the Catholic Church was ever spoken of at all, one way or the other, in scripture.

I don’t think he said that, Seeker. I think what he is saying is that the authority for the Church is based in scripture. There was only one church, and that was the catholic church. It was not referred to by that name until the next century, but it was the universal church (katholikos). Did you think it was a baptist church?

Jesus spoke of the Church, not the Catholic Church. In my way of thinking the Catholic Church is one subset within the Church which Jesus established. It is not the whole of the Church. \QUOTE]

Your “way of thinking” may not have been informed by history so well.
Grace Seeker;2052446:

Perhaps, as Guanophore sees that the “we” of jmcrae’s post includes both Protestant and Catholic, then we are not so far apart on this belief. But I have yet to hear jmcrae’s response to the question, and wonder if it will be the same or different from Guanophore.

jmcrae will say that Satan is the enemy of all mankind, which is true. He is especially vigorous at working against those who claim Christ, however.

Guanophore wants unity. Unity does not have to be a demand to return to the fold. It can be a recognition that we are all still one in Christ.

This is an important step to unity that the Catholic Church has already taken.

That, even if we have different earthly overseers, Christ is still the head of us all. And no one group has a greater claim to Christ than another. Don’t know that it is intentional, but you need to hear that from my perspecitve much of this discussion has sounded like a put down of Protestants as being lesser children of God.

No one of us is qualified to judge who is a lesser or greater child of God. Only He can look upon the heart. What we can judge, though is that the Catholic church has the fullness of truth, and that those who have broken from it have, at varying degrees, lost part of that truth.

If you are in the right and we are in the wrong, what do you have to lose with taking time to actually hear and seek to understand our protestations rather than merely condemn them?

I am willing to hear, or I would not be here at all. I will condemn wrong doctrine, however, not those that hold it. I think that most of those having “protestations” have not been educated. Many protestants have been taught to eschew or abhor Catholicism, and many have been misinformed about what we believe.

I was asked: “Since we agree that Christ want us to be one, what can be done to fix this?” I made a few suggestions, but none of the responses have been to that which I wrote in response to that, they have all been an attack on other places at which we are apparently different trying to get me to conform.

Now what?

Hint: If I was a conformist, I wouldn’t be a protestant would I?

Good Catholics aren’t much good at confroming either. Good Catholics do not fit in well with today’s society, and it’s culture of death.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You’re welcome.

Someone who has rejected Christ’s Church in the full knowledge that Christ founded a Church and this is the one, has, in rejecting His Church, rejected His authority and lordship in their lives. Which is the same thing as rejecting Christ.

The majority of modern-day Protestants have absolutely no idea that Christ ever founded a Church at all, let alone which one, since their leaders re-interpret all the verses about His Church into some sort of hyper-spiritualized “invisible assembly of believers” and since they have no way of knowing that their leaders were not appointed by Christ, they are not guilty of believing falsehoods, because they have no way of knowing that these are falsehoods. These Protestants are my brothers and sisters in Christ, not because of being Protestant (which is a bad thing) but because Protestantism is the best they can do with what they have (which is a good thing, and sufficient for salvation in their case, because we are all called to do our best.)

But someone who knows for a fact that Christ founded an actual, visible Church organization, and knows which one it is, but remains outside of it out of stubbornness, or out of fear of human opinions, is standing on rather dangerous ground, as best I can figure it.

That’s all I can say about that.

I believe I have just been accused of rejecting Christ.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I don’t think he said that, Seeker. I think what he is saying is that the authority for the Church is based in scripture. There was only one church, and that was the catholic church. It was not referred to by that name until the next century, but it was the universal church (katholikos). Did you think it was a baptist church?

The authority of which church, the universal church (katholikos) or of the one that came to be referred to a century later as the Catholic Church. There was an evolution of understanding in the first few centures of the early church, and when it reach the point that the church began to say that some Christians are in the Church and some are not in the Church, then it changed the meaning from catholic as an adjective meaning universal, to Catholic as a title meaning thus who accept our authority.

In my view if one drew a Venn representing Christianity, one would have the universe being all people in the world.

Then there would be a several large circles that did not intersect. Each of these circles would be a world religion. One would be Christianity, one would be Islam, one would be Judaism, and so on. Inside the large circle representing Christianity there would some other circles: 3 larger circles, again that did not intersect, and a few smaller circles, and a few unitary dots. Each of the larger circles inside the large circle representing Christianity would be labled The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Protestant Church. The smaller circles would have other labels for other Christian groups that don’t fit any of the above categories. And the dots would have names of individuals who are Christian but live in isolation from any organized aspect of any instutional Church.

There maybe be smaller circles within the other circles representing different groups within Catholics, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism. Some of these would be intersecting of other circles within each group and some would not. They would represent different denominations, churches, fellowships, ecumenical gatherings, etc. to which individual Christians belonged as members. And again there would be millions of dots within these circles representing individual Christians. Now which of those dots are in the body of Christ, which of those are in the Church. My answer, and I believe it is the biblical answer: All the dots that are in the larger circle representing Christianity as one of the world religions. But I am here on this thread many responses that say, NO. Only those that are part of the subset known as the Catholic Church. And when I here that, I cry. Becuase it is then not Protestants that have brought about the separation, it is the views and attitude of those who mislable the diagram, and act on that false labeling.

You want to see unity in the church? Don’t pray for it. It is available if you will only open up and embrace your brother as your brother, even if he is not a Catholic. Your prayers have been answered, we are here. But you are still praying for something that Christ has given you a long time ago. You just refuse to recognize it.

 

[guanophore]

I believe I have just been accused of rejecting Christ.

I don’t think so, Seeker. Your posts clearly indicate that you do not understand Catholicism well enough to reject it.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I don’t think so, Seeker. Your posts clearly indicate that you do not understand Catholicism well enough to reject it.

I understand that the Catholicism I am finding on this board is completely foreign to the Catholicism I know in person.

What I know in person is people of God who are accepting of other people of God and work hand in hand with them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

I do not feel that type of acceptance as a brothers and sisters in Christ here. No, I definitely feel that I have been labelled as one separated from the true Church. I have worshipped with my brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church in three countries on two continents. This is the first time I have ever been made to feel as less of a Christian, or perhaps not even worthy to be called a Christian depending on which particular Catholic is currently posting.

 

[guanophore]

The authority of which church, the universal church (katholikos) or of the one that came to be referred to a century later as the Catholic Church.

They are one and the same.

There was an evolution of understanding in the first few centures of the early church, and when it reach the point that the church began to say that some Christians are in the Church and some are not in the Church, then it changed the meaning from catholic as an adjective meaning universal, to Catholic as a title meaning thus who accept our authority.

Since there were no people at that time calling themselves Christian who were not katholic, they were heretics, and therefore, by definition, not members.

In my view if one drew a Venn representing Christianity, one would have the universe being all people in the world.

Ok.

Then there would be a several large circles that did not intersect. Each of these circles would be a world religion. One would be Christianity, one would be Islam, one would be Judaism, and so on. Inside the large circle representing Christianity there would some other circles: 3 larger circles, again that did not intersect, and a few smaller circles, and a few unitary dots. Each of the larger circles inside the large circle representing Christianity would be labled The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Protestant Church. The smaller circles would have other labels for other Christian groups that don’t fit any of the above categories. And the dots would have names of individuals who are Christian but live in isolation from any organized aspect of any instutional Church.

Ok. But you are describing a present day state. I was talking about the second century.

There maybe be smaller circles within the other circles representing different groups within Catholics, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism. Some of these would be intersecting of other circles within each group and some would not. They would represent different denominations, churches, fellowships, ecumenical gatherings, etc. to which individual Christians belonged as members. And again there would be millions of dots within these circles representing individual Christians. Now which of those dots are in the body of Christ, which of those are in the Church. My answer, and I believe it is the biblical answer: All the dots that are in the larger circle representing Christianity as one of the world religions. But I am here on this thread many responses that say, NO. Only those that are part of the subset known as the Catholic Church. And when I here that, I cry. Becuase it is then not Protestants that have brought about the separation, it is the views and attitude of those who mislable the diagram, and act on that false labeling.

I disagree that Protestants did not bring separation. They did. And if you understand the history of Christianity,you will accept this. I also will acknowledge that Catholics at times perpetuate the separations. It is not false labelling, we just have a different understanding of the Church. Catholics believe that Jesus founded one church, and members are part of it. It is His body. Therefore, all who are members of the body of Christ belong to the Church. The church has brethren that are separated.

You want to see unity in the church? Don’t pray for it. It is available if you will only open up and embrace your brother as your brother, even if he is not a Catholic. Your prayers have been answered, we are here. But you are still praying for something that Christ has given you a long time ago. You just refuse to recognize it.

I don’t understand why you think I don’t recognize this. It seems to me that my separated brethren do not wish to be reunited, because they do not want to embrace the tenents of the faith that were rejected by their forefathers.

 

[jmcrae]

I believe I have just been accused of rejecting Christ.

Only you know for sure whether you mean to reject His authority over you, when you reject His Church and say that any church is good enough, as long as it claims to be Christian, in some sense.

Let me ask you this: does Truth matter? Or is any set of beliefs okay, as long as they have the label “Christian” on them?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Only you know for sure whether you mean to reject His authority over you, when you reject His Church and say that any church is good enough, as long as it claims to be Christian, in some sense.

Let me ask you this: does Truth matter? Or is any set of beliefs okay, as long as they have the label “Christian” on them?

Truth does matter. Labeling them Christian does not make them Christian. I would concur that there are some that use the name Christian that are not Christian. Labeling them non-Catholic does NOT make them false either. I do not think that the Catholic Church is the sole repository of even Christian truth, let alone all other truths.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

They are one and the same.

Since there were no people at that time calling themselves Christian who were not katholic, they were heretics, and therefore, by definition, not members.

Ok.

Ok. But you are describing a present day state. I was talking about the second century.

I disagree that Protestants did not bring separation. They did. And if you understand the history of Christianity,you will accept this. I also will acknowledge that Catholics at times perpetuate the separations. It is not false labelling, we just have a different understanding of the Church. Catholics believe that Jesus founded one church, and members are part of it. It is His body. Therefore, all who are members of the body of Christ belong to the Church. The church has brethren that are separated.

I don’t understand why you think I don’t recognize this. It seems to me that my separated brethren do not wish to be reunited, because they do not want to embrace the tenents of the faith that were rejected by their forefathers.

guanophore,

Do you not notice how your responses and those of jmcrae are of two different natures? But both present themselves as Catholic. The issue is more than was Luther a heretic. The are issues as whether the Catholic Church right to treat this particular heretic as they did. Or for that matter many of the others that it has declared to be heretics, Galileo for instance. We all know that Galileo was wrong. He must have been, because the infallible Catholic Church declared his teachings to be heresy. Any institution that sees itself as the sole repository of truth, and then having seen itself this way, declares that all others that do not agree with her are in error, regardless of what other truth makes itself known. Is in error in its spirit, even if it should always prove to be correct in content – which I don’t believe is the case either.

To quote my favorite line from a silly movie, (The Princess Bride), when you refer to Jesus building the Church on Peter as proof of the the divine institutionalization of the Catholic Church, “I don’t think it means what you think it means.” I don’t even think that the present worldview espoused by the Catholic Church over those comments was in existence for the first couple of hundred years of Christian history. To interpret them as the Catholic Church does today, is simply to interpret them wrongly. To embrace some of the tenets you want to see us embrace would be to knowingly embrace error.

But we recognize that we are not perfect either. Therefore, though we think ourselves right we admit the possibility of error – something the Catholic Church seems unwilling to do – and hold that one not need be in perfect harmony of beliefs with us to be our brother or sister in Christ. One need only be in Christ. That is sufficient. And further, that confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is thus the only standard we have for what it means to be “in Christ”. Indeed we will celebrate the eucharist in my church tomorrow and we will invite all who understand themselves to belong to the body of Christ, all who desire to live a Christian life, to join in communion with us. We push no one away, and we invite all, you would be welcome here without reservation. So, if I came to your church tomorrow and desired to take the eucharist without any change in my present views would I be equally welcome to partake the the eucharist with you?

If so, then I stand corrected and you have not pushed us away. If not, …

 

[guanophore]

Truth does matter. Labeling them Christian does not make them Christian. I would concur that there are some that use the name Christian that are not Christian. Labeling them non-Catholic does NOT make them false either. I do not think that the Catholic Church is the sole repository of even Christian truth, let alone all other truths.

No, but since they are non-Catholic, either through rebellion, or through no fault of their own, they are missing part of the truth. Not, the Catholic Church has not claimed to be the sole repository,and in fact recognizes that the Holy Spirit does work in communities of our separated brethren. The Church has never claimed to be the source of all other truths, only those of faith and morals essential to living the full Christian life. she will not be pronouncing on whether there used to be life on Mars.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The Church has never claimed to be the source of all other truths, only those of faith and morals essential to living the full Christian life. she will not be pronouncing on whether there used to be life on Mars.

First, she may not be pronouncing on whether there used to be life on Mars, but she did pronounce that the Earth was at the center of the universe and labeled as heretics those that taught otherswise. Of course the really were heretics because they taught contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But they were also right. So, sometimes what the Catholic Church labels as heresy is in fact truth.

Second, the church has no business claiming to be the source of “faith and morals essential to living the full Christian life.” This is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the Catholic Church. Not any church. The church is at best an interpretor of these things. Further one does not need to be a part of the Catholic Church to receive the Holy Spirit’s guidance enabling one to interpret the Bible’s teaching on these matters.

Those who are non-Catholic and missing part of the truth, are not missing the truth because they are non-Catholic, they are missing it because they are human, and perfect truth and perfect understanding of God’s revelation will only take place in our lives when we are given the gift of seeing him as he really is. This takes place in heaven, not on earth.(See 1 Corinthians 13:12).

 

[Aramis]

The only time that the Church uses the name ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is in dialog with Christians who are not members of the Body which is prime ministered by the Pope in Rome. For instance, the official body of Catholic bishops in the United States is called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, not Roman Catholic Bishops. The official catechism which is published by the USCCB is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. If you search in the Catechism, catholic church is used and ‘the Church’ is used even moreso. Roman Catholic Church is not used once. Roman Catholic Church, as I said, is a title used by those Christians who wish to deny the authority of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church prime ministered by the Pope in Rome.

You need to actually look at the membership of the USCCB. It includes the Ruthenian-Byzantines, the Chaldeans, the Romans, The Maronites, and more. It is not the “United States Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops” because it is multi-ritual, multi-Catholic-Church. All Catholic, but only the Latins are Roman Catholics. If they are in Union with Rome, and have Ordinaries (Bishops) in the US, they can join the USCCB.

Examine the following page: usccb.org/bishops.shtml
Every Eparchy mentioned is non-Roman, but still Catholic and in Union with Rome. Several of the Metropolitans also are Eastern Churches’.

The Roman Catholic Church is the name of the western rite. The unified churches together are the Catholic Church. The papcy is both the Ritual Patriarch of the Roman Church and the other western Rites (none left, at the moment, at least not still in union), AND “First amonst Equals” (head of the council of Patriarchs) and Vicar of Christ (Head of the Holy Catholic Church in its entirety).