The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[guanophore]

But I'll not take your word for it with respect to theology.  Yoiur interpretation of the Great Commission is an insult to Christians everywhere.

Why do you say that? I don’t understand what is insulting about it.

Christ commissioned ALL disciples in the commssioning of the Eleven. All is hardly limited to those in communion with Rome.

At the time, and for a millennia afterward, everyone was in one accord, and in communion. Rome was the symbolic center of that communion, but it was a universal (catholic) agreement on faith and morals.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, for these very purposes. That was the whole point of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) , was to promulgate the teachings, commandments, and Sacraments of Christ accurately and thoroughly to the entire world. (That is, in other words, to be the source of faith and morals.)

The Holy Spirit was given to the Catholic Church at the first Christian Pentecost, which was on what date? Was it October 31, 1517?

We know from the writings of St. Irenaeus that Jesus died on the Cross on March 25th, 33 AD, meaning that He rose from the dead on March 27th 33 AD - add 50 days, and Pentecost of that year was on the 15th of May, 33 AD.

More than a millenium before the Reformation was even a glimmer in Martin Luther’s eye, and indeed, roughly about four centuries before Martin Luther’s most distant ancestors (the Vandals) sacked the city of Rome the first time.

That you appear to think it is is exactly where the insult lies. It is also not a biblical position. If this is what the Catholic Church teaches, then I suggest it isn’t Luther and the like who are the heretics.

Which part of jmcrae’s quote are you suggesting is heretical?

If you are going to stoop to using ad hominem arguments in this discussion I will continue it with guanophore alone.

Ooohh! I guess I better behave

As to when the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples, was it not when Jesus breathed on them and told them to “receive the Holy Spirit”? This was BEFORE Pentecost. What they received at Penteoost was power when the Holy Spirit came upon them (called by many the Baptism of the Holy Spirit), but this is not when the Holy Spirit was given.

Further, the Holy Spirit was given to them as individuals, not as a church. The Holy Spirit operates in individual lives, not in an institution. The Holy Spirit gifts the church with spiritual gifts, by giving them to individual Christians. Authoriy may be in an office, but the power and blessings of the Holy Spirit resides in the person.

But that is what we have been saying! About Peter, and the Magesterium!

And though I’ve said it before, since you’ve come back to that tired old saw: “The Catholic Church was founded by Christ,”, I’ll go ahead and repeat myself. The Catholic Church (as you think of it today) was NOT founded by Christ. The Church, as the body of Christ (incorporating all believers), was founded by Christ. At that time it was indeed catholic, but it wasn’t the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a human designed institution carved out of the true catholic Church, and created centuries later by men, not by Jesus.

I think the difference of perspective may be that Catholics believe they are still the body of Christ, and despite all the human errors taht individuals have made, God has preserved, as He said He would, His bride. The church grows in understanding, and now understands that our separated brethren are part of that Body, that Bride.

 

[RNRobert]

If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. %between% If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:15-18)

This passage is meaningless if the “Church” is nothing more than the “invisible union of Christians.” The purpose of expelling a disobedient member is to discipline him and bring him back to the faith, or, as Paul wrote when telling the Corinthians to excommunicate the man sleeping with his stepmother, “to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5). However, what advantage is there to doing this when the person can simply skip on over to the church down the street that is more accomodating? Or simply rent a storefront and pulpit and set up his own church teaching his own interpretation of Scripture that suits him?
The church is to be a “city set on a hill” (Matthew 5:14). How can an “invisible body of believers” belonging to different sects that can’t agree on what Scripture teaches demonstrate the unity that Christ prayed for?

 

[MrS]

To my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ:

I just re-read a post of mine above, and there is a line I typed that I regret. I would edit it out deleting it, but I cannot do so. It was written hastily and I would withdraw it if I could. It is wrong of me to say that you do not understand scripture. We may disagree as to our interpretations of the best understanding of a particular passage, but that does not mean you have no understanding of it. I apologize.

From one who is still growing and a long way from perfection,
Grace Seeker

from another who still is growing, I have to smile at this post. It is probably something we all do from time to time in our zeal.

That is surely a stuggle for me… trying NOT to find MY interpretation. Afterall, the Scripture we are blessed with warns against it. I may be right at times by accident. But I would rather rely on Christ as He said “…he who hears you (His Church Magisterium, not the body of believers), hears Me, and he who reject you, rejects Me …”

As Passion Week begins, I will try to remember that Passion means patience… patience in our suffering, patience, the endurance of which, is a great sign of Love.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

This passage is meaningless if the “Church” is nothing more than the “invisible union of Christians.” The purpose of expelling a disobedient member is to discipline him and bring him back to the faith, or, as Paul wrote when telling the Corinthians to excommunicate the man sleeping with his stepmother, “to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5). However, what advantage is there to doing this when the person can simply skip on over to the church down the street that is more accomodating? Or simply rent a storefront and pulpit and set up his own church teaching his own interpretation of Scripture that suits him?
The church is to be a “city set on a hill” (Matthew 5:14). How can an “invisible body of believers” belonging to different sects that can’t agree on what Scripture teaches demonstrate the unity that Christ prayed for?

This verse operates in the context of an individual assembly of believers who all know each other, not a worldwide organization.

If the person simply skips to the church down the street, then they would be the ones in relationship with that person.

Evidently we can’t demostrate unity. But all we would have to do to demostrate it is to accept one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Are you willing to do that?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

from another who still is growing, I have to smile at this post. It is probably something we all do from time to time in our zeal.

That is surely a stuggle for me… trying NOT to find MY interpretation. Afterall, the Scripture we are blessed with warns against it. I may be right at times by accident. But I would rather rely on Christ as He said “…he who hears you (His Church Magisterium, not the body of believers), hears Me, and he who reject you, rejects Me …”

As Passion Week begins, I will try to remember that Passion means patience… patience in our suffering, patience, the endurance of which, is a great sign of Love.

I appreciate the spirit of this post. It would be wonderful if we all could simply rely on what Christ said. Unfortunately, even when two people hear the same message, they may leave with two different understandings of what was said. This is because in addition to the words of the message we also each bring our own backgrounds to the process by which we listen to those words and thus they regesiter with each person in unique ways. To test this, give a set of instructions to a classroom of children and see how many different understandings of what you expected come out of it. Inspite of these differences, what brings us harmony exists in two things: (1) it is the same Holy Spirit that guides each one of us Catholic and non-Catholic alike; (2) a willingness to be in dialog both speaking and listening (however, if the Catholic church is the only one who can speak on the subject of faith and morals, then we have shut down that dialog).

 

[nerfherder]

I don’t know the answer to what term we should use. Why cannot we not just say we are brothers, without the emphasis on the separation? We are brothers and sisters in Christ, even though of different communions. The last is a shame, but I think the first is more important.

In the current version of the Nicene Creed, we all say:

**We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. **

Small c catholic is like small c communism: a concept, an idea. In this case *catholic *refers to the universal church, the body of Christ.

Big C Catholic is the Church of Rome. Big C Communism was the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) or the People’s Republic of China. They are/were organisations.

The Nicene Creed, when it says we believe in one catholic church clearly says that we believe in the universal church of Christ - and that is the body of all those redeemed by Christ.

I prefer to use the term reformed churches, or protestantism, for example. Using the term Protestant or non-Catholic Churches defines all Christian churches not part of the Roman Church in terms of the Roman Church. It is like saying a cat is a non-dog; a man is a non-woman. Christianity has many denominations, and the Catholic Church is one of many.

Jabulani

 

[believers]

from another who still is growing, I have to smile at this post. It is probably something we all do from time to time in our zeal.

That is surely a stuggle for me… trying NOT to find MY interpretation. Afterall, the Scripture we are blessed with warns against it. I may be right at times by accident. But I would rather rely on Christ as He said “…he who hears you (His Church Magisterium, not the body of believers), hears Me, and he who reject you, rejects Me …”

As Passion Week begins, I will try to remember that Passion means patience… patience in our suffering, patience, the endurance of which, is a great sign of Love.

But I would rather rely on Christ as He said “…he who hears you (His Church Magisterium, not the body of believers), hears Me, and he who reject you, rejects Me …”

That verse is completely taken out of context. Then you’ve added to scripture “HIs Church Magisterium, not the body of believers”.

Jesus was talking to the seventy appointed BELIEVERS to go out and preach the word.

Start with the parable in Luke 8:5-15. Pay close attention to Luk 8:12
“Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”

Then read Luke 10:1-17 and get the full meaning in context for Luke 10:16.

 

[nerfherder]

The purpose of expelling a disobedient member is to discipline him and bring him back to the faith

I am enjoying Grace Seeker’s astute sparring, combined with compassion and lovingkindness, as well as a wish for opportunities for informed dialogue.

Ummmmmm, has anyone thought to comment on the reason Luther and others removed themselves from the Catholic Church of the time, and formed what they considered to be churches that truly reflected Christ’s intentions at a time when the Roman Church was foundering? Perhaps if the Church had not foundered, there would have been no schism. Perhaps if Luther had not taken the initiative, the Catholic Church would no longer exist. Perhaps Luther forced the issue.

Jabulani

 

[RNRobert]

I am enjoying Grace Seeker’s astute sparring, combined with compassion and lovingkindness, as well as a wish for opportunities for informed dialogue.

Ummmmmm, has anyone thought to comment on the reason Luther and others removed themselves from the Catholic Church of the time, and formed what they considered to be churches that truly reflected Christ’s intentions at a time when the Roman Church was foundering? Perhaps if the Church had not foundered, there would have been no schism. Perhaps if Luther had not taken the initiative, the Catholic Church would no longer exist. Perhaps Luther forced the issue.

Jabulani

Yes, the church in Luther’s time had serious problems. Heck the church has always had problems, from the 1st century down to the 21st century today. But nowhere in Scripture are we told to that it’s ok to go off and start our own church. The church **was **reformed, but not by Luther’s revolt (I think Luther was a little too full of himself to be able to lead real reform). Of course, considering the social and political issues at the time, perhaps the Protestant revolt was inevitable, but I don’t see how shattering the Church into thousands of competing, contradicting sects is a good thing.

 

[nerfherder]

Yes, the church in Luther’s time had serious problems. Heck the church has always had problems, from the 1st century down to the 21st century today. But nowhere in Scripture are we told to that it’s ok to go off and start our own church. The church **was **reformed, but not by Luther’s revolt (I think Luther was a little too full of himself to be able to lead real reform). Of course, considering the social and political issues at the time, perhaps the Protestant revolt was inevitable, but I don’t see how shattering the Church into thousands of competing, contradicting sects is a good thing.

There are a couple of points here to consider:

(1) we hear again and again about 30,000 ‘protestant churches’ or thousands of ‘sects’. I know that any evangelical preacher can hire himself a hall, and go have a meeting. That does not constitute a church for me. I am talking about the mainstream reformed churches - Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian and others. You know the ones I am talking about: those that are members of the World Council of Churches, and with whom the RCC has been in negotiation for the past forty years;

(2) we talk as if the scripture is the only authoritative manual with regard to Christian belief. It is the primary source, but not the only source. And it must be interpreted by people who are scholars - from many differing backgrounds. I think that although the Bible does not say it is OK to go off and start another church, it also does not say that it is not OK. That does not mean it was not a Good Thing at the time.

(3) RCC often arrives at its positions in reaction to events, heresies, challenges of various kinds from outside its walls. This may skew its interpretations at times. It makes the Church more defensive than it need be. But it also seems to move towards reform in reaction to outside events.

Would the RCC exist if it were not for Luther et al?

Jabulani

 

[MrS]

That verse is completely taken out of context. Then you’ve added to scripture “HIs Church Magisterium, not the body of believers”.

Jesus was talking to the seventy appointed BELIEVERS to go out and preach the word.

Start with the parable in Luke 8:5-15. Pay close attention to Luk 8:12
“Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”

Then read Luke 10:1-17 and get the full meaning in context for Luke 10:16.

I did NOT add to Scripture… what I put in parenthesis was a reminder that Jesus was NOT talking to just any of his disciples. He was talking to only the 12.

Those words of the Lord are not in the parable of Luke, because I was not quoting from Luke.

Talk about taking out of context.

 

[jmcrae]

Would the RCC exist if it were not for Luther et al?

Yes, it certainly would. Christ’s promise to our first Pope was that “the gates of Hell shall never prevail.”

Luther’s attempts to destroy the Church were not what “saved it from itself” as so many Protestants like to think.

Keep in mind, one of the reasons the Pope was distracted from his duties of guiding the Church in right faith and morals (which is the excuse given for the Protestant rebellion) was that there were Muslims coming in from the South, trying to destroy the Church in Spain and in Italy. They, too, did not succeed. What with Lutherans coming and burning all from the North, and Muslims coming in and burning all from the South, it is indeed a miracle of God that we are still here.

Bigger than ever.

 

[RNRobert]

There are a couple of points here to consider:

(1) we hear again and again about 30,000 ‘protestant churches’ or thousands of ‘sects’. I know that any evangelical preacher can hire himself a hall, and go have a meeting. That does not constitute a church for me. I am talking about the mainstream reformed churches - Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian and others. You know the ones I am talking about: those that are members of the World Council of Churches, and with whom the RCC has been in negotiation for the past forty years;

(2) we talk as if the scripture is the only authoritative manual with regard to Christian belief. It is the primary source, but not the only source. And it must be interpreted by people who are scholars - from many differing backgrounds. I think that although the Bible does not say it is OK to go off and start another church, it also does not say that it is not OK. That does not mean it was not a Good Thing at the time.

(3) RCC often arrives at its positions in reaction to events, heresies, challenges of various kinds from outside its walls. This may skew its interpretations at times. It makes the Church more defensive than it need be. But it also seems to move towards reform in reaction to outside events.

Would the RCC exist if it were not for Luther et al?

Jabulani

To answer your questions:

(1) What makes the storefront church down the street any less a ‘church’ than the more established ‘mainline’ churches? They are simply following in the footsteps of their forefather Martin Luther by saying “I protest” and starting their own church. Heck many of the ‘mainline’ denoms (for instance the Baptist and Methodist churches) split off from other Protestant denoms. And even many of the mainline churches are incredibly fractured. I saw it at work in the Baptist church I attended.
(2) I agree, the Bible is not the only authoritative source of Christian belief. That is why I obey the magisterium of the Church. But many Protestants do hold the Scriptures to be the only source of Christian belief. I know there are many different flavors of Sola Scriptura (some, like the fundamentalists, disregard any doctrine that isn’t spelled out in the Bible, while others like the more established churches read the Scriptures in light of the ECF), but at the end of the day, what it comes down to is that everyone is free to interpret the Bible as they see fit. I don’t think that is what Luther and the other reformers intended. but when they rejected the teaching authority of the church, they opened the proverbial Pandora’s box.
(3) I would agree, that the Church normally doesn’t make any kind of proclamation until there is a dispute; for example, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t defined the Council of Nicea in 325, in answer to the Arian heresy. Cardinal Newman wrote “No dogma defined until violated.” This isn’t entirely true, the as the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were declared simply to clarify what many had long believed.
As to whether the RCC would exist whether or not for Luther, I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you saying that if not for the reformation, the Catholic Church would have disappeared? I don’t think so. In the case of the reformation, I think the ‘cure’ was worse than the disease. It unleashed over a century of bloody religious war in Europe, and gave rise to state churches where the church was nothing more than a way to control the people (like the Church of England), and I believe it gave rise to the unbelief of the Enlightenment.

 

[guanophore]

I appreciate the spirit of this post. It would be wonderful if we all could simply rely on what Christ said. Unfortunately, even when two people hear the same message, they may leave with two different understandings of what was said. This is because in addition to the words of the message we also each bring our own backgrounds to the process by which we listen to those words and thus they regesiter with each person in unique ways. To test this, give a set of instructions to a classroom of children and see how many different understandings of what you expected come out of it. Inspite of these differences, what brings us harmony exists in two things: (1) it is the same Holy Spirit that guides each one of us Catholic and non-Catholic alike; (2) a willingness to be in dialog both speaking and listening (however, if the Catholic church is the only one who can speak on the subject of faith and morals, then we have shut down that dialog).

We certainly know that everyone and anyone can speak on the subject of faith and morals, and do so! However, only the Magesterium has the authority, given by Christ, to speak on His behalf on those faith and morals.

 

[MrS]

. It would be wonderful if we all could simply rely on what Christ said. Unfortunately, even when two people hear the same message, they may leave with two different understandings of what was said. This is because in addition to the words of the message we also each bring our own backgrounds to the process by which we listen to those words and thus they regesiter with each person in unique ways.

To test this, give a set of instructions to a classroom of children and see how many different understandings of what you expected come out of it. Inspite of these differences, what brings us harmony exists in two things: (1) it is the same Holy Spirit that guides each one of us Catholic and non-Catholic alike; (2) a willingness to be in dialog both speaking and listening (however, if the Catholic church is the only one who can speak on the subject of faith and morals, then we have shut down that dialog).

Kind of like this example:

I did not say you stole the money.

I did not say you stole the money.

I did not say **you **stole the money.

I did not say you stole the money.

I did not say you stole the money.

Putting emphasis on the red word gives a different meaning to the whole sentence… How do we know which is correct? We ask the author. Same with Scripture.

What if the author, say St John, cannot tell us directly what his words mean in John 6? We can ask the one(s) he taught directly… like Ignatius for example. And what if he is no longer with us? We ask the one(s) he taught. And so on and so on.

Only the Catholic Church has a credible succession of teaching authority to walk us through the Scriptures… the Scriptures of the NT eventually were put to paper under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But this only happened to the human authors of the NT…all members of the first, the original, the only Church Jesus founded upon this Rock, Peter.

You may have some things right… but you could not possibly have the confidence of the Catholic Church Teaching of 2000 years.

 

[mark_a]

Would the RCC exist if it were not for Luther et al?

Jabulani

Would Lutheranism exist if not for the “RCC”?

 

[mark_a]

Hello Grace Seeker,

I saw another thread and thought about your concerns in this thread. The spats between Prosestants and Catholics are very mild compared to the fueding going on between Orthodox and Catholics.

And the Pope is still reaching out to the Orthodox.

 

[mdstanzel]

mark a
Maybe we should be happy to say that the Orthodox are still reaching out to Catholics. We need to try to understand the Orthodox and hope that they will try to understand us. Mostly forgive us for our stupidity in history. Our ancestrial Popes made some pretty wrong decisions in the past in an attempt to force Orthodox to adhere to Roman Catholic prelates by replacing the Orthodox leader in Constantinopal for example. We sack em and then stole a lot of stuff and tried to force the locals to submit to Rome. It backfired and rightfully so. It was almost like the Vatican decided that we lost them so we might as well give it a last ditch effort to force them into submission to Rome. That came form a Catholic Historican on EWTN - Fr. Connor. We have a lot of crow to eat. Theolocially we are just being stupid to think we have to be exact. The Eastern Catholics are closer to Eastern Orthodox that to Roman Catholics. There is not real excuse for this disunity other than false pride in our prelates and the followers of each group.

 

[mark_a]

mark a
We need to try to understand the Orthodox and hope that they will try to understand us. Mostly forgive us for our stupidity in history. Our ancestrial Popes made some pretty wrong decisions in the past in an attempt to force Orthodox to adhere to Roman Catholic prelates by replacing the Orthodox leader in Constantinopal for example. We sack em and then stole a lot of stuff and tried to force the locals to submit to Rome. It backfired and rightfully so. It was almost like the Vatican decided that we lost them so we might as well give it a last ditch effort to force them into submission to Rome. That came form a Catholic Historican on EWTN - Fr. Connor. We have a lot of crow to eat. Theolocially we are just being stupid to think we have to be exact. The Eastern Catholics are closer to Eastern Orthodox that to Roman Catholics. There is not real excuse for this disunity other than false pride in our prelates and the followers of each group.

Lots of bad blood for sure. No argument from me on the problems the Catholic Church brought on herself.

But the current actions of the Catholic Church make me think that the Church is entering its old age. She lived a life, made lots of mistakes, and has learned enough from them to try to reunite the “family”.

Maybe we should be happy to say that the Orthodox are still reaching out to Catholics.

Maybe its our American culture with little exposure to Orthodoxy, but I just don’t see the Orthodox reaching out to Catholics.

 

[mdstanzel]

I’d like to see the statistics on the current makeup of Eastern Orthodox in America. If there are as many converts from protestants as I think, then they may be hanging onto the same anti-Catholic rhetoric from their old beliefs. I just don’t know. But my understanding is that there is a group of Orthodox that have a strong internet presence that clearly have issues according to the Orthodox Christian my Orthodox Christian friends. I hope that this isn’t where they hang out to give their distorted view of Orthodox Christianity.