The Catholic Church

[block]

The catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ. The Roman Catholic church was NOT founded by Christ. One is an institution created by man and the other is not an institution and was founded by Christ.

Well, Jesus himself did not identify his church as the Catholic Church. It was given this name years after. When the Catholic Church started to seperate into its different rites is when the name Roman Catholic came about it, and it is this Church, the Roman Catholic Church, that represents the religon started by Jesus Christ. All other rites of Catholicism and any other religon are just interpretations of the Catholic bible. I fail to see the point of the seperations, I don’t understand why other religons can’t except the fact that the authority of His church was given to the Catholics and jump on board.

 

[block]

By the way, there are 8 different rites of the Catholic Church.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=328218&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=rites&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=26&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ID+DESC&start_at=

I believe that there is quite a bit more than 8, possible in the low 20’s but I’m not positive.

 

[ckempston]

Good point.

Well, I certainly don’t want to just leave it at that. The questions that arise from my point are:

Am I understanding what Jesus said correctly?
If so, what are the consequences?
If not, what is the alternate explanation(s)?
Is the alternate explanation consistent with the plain statement of Christ, and does it reconcile with other scriptures?

There are, of course, admitted difficulties with my position, including the fact that the Canon was established after the death of the Apostles, though this isn’t exactly revalatory, so I’m not sure if it is such a big problem.

So, the question remains, what did Jesus mean when he said the Apostles would be led into all truth?

 

[block]

Well, I certainly don’t want to just leave it at that. The questions that arise from my point are:

Am I understanding what Jesus said correctly?
If so, what are the consequences?
If not, what is the alternate explanation(s)?
Is the alternate explanation consistent with the plain statement of Christ, and does it reconcile with other scriptures?

There are, of course, admitted difficulties with my position, including the fact that the Canon was established after the death of the Apostles, though this isn’t exactly revalatory, so I’m not sure if it is such a big problem.

So, the question remains, what did Jesus mean when he said the Apostles would be led into all truth?

I’m not sure I understand this is entire conversation or what has been said. But I know that one of the apostles asked Jesus why He spoke in parrables. And I wish I could find it now but I can’t. But if I recall correctly, He told the apostle that because they have been shown the mysteries of heaven that they did not need the parrables but we would not understand unless he spoke to us in terms that we would understand. So maybe by Him showing the apostles the meaning can answer your question? Maybe not, I don’t know.

 

[elvisman]

Observance of Holy Days are not religious or spiritual practices? I disagree. As Cinette pointed out in her last post, this discussion has become overly argumentative, and I of course, bear a brunt of the blame for this. I’m stopping here. I’ll pick up elsewhere if I find I can be productive and non-combative. Must be something I ate in the last couple days.

My intention is not to get into a shouting match with you, either. It’s just that these unfounded accusations get to be annoying.

If my tone with you has become abrupt, I apologize, but it’s because you make accusations and add meaning to what the scriptures are saying – with no basis at all. Then you accuse the Catholic church of doing the same - again, with no basis at all.

Colossians 2:16-17** is referring to holy days and practices in the Mosaic Law – not Christian practices such as holy days of obligation, etc. That’s why he says that these were but shadows of the things to be fulfilled in Christ. Your point there is moot.**

 

[Ignatius]

When did the Cathloic church first get the name the Catholic church .and why

The first written record we have of the reference to The Catholic Church is from Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was born 50 A.D. and was taught The Faith by the Apostles St. Peter and St.John. He was the first martyr to be thrown to the wild beasts in the Collesium. On his way to his martyrdom he wrote “Wherever Jesus Christ is there is The Catholic Church.”

Of course, terms are generally in wide use long before they are ever seen in written form.

I hope you find this helpful.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[sambos671]

You cannot be serious. Are you purposely trying to misrepresent what I’ve said?

I made the claim: all truth would be revealed before the death of the Apostels (just according to Jesus).

Paul was an Apostle (although abormally born).

So, somehow, from this, you conclude that Paul (who was divinely inspired, and certainly writing before all the Apostles were dead) should not be able to instruct the churches and explain things???

I’m not trying to misrepresent anything from what you’ve said. What I am trying to do is show that Paul established a principle carried forward by the Church which is that both Paul and the Church respond to ideas which are against orthodoxy. You claim that the Church Defines too much. I’m saying the Church has been put in a position where it must respond to falicious statements by definition not unlike what Paul was doing in Galatians with regard to salvation.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, you didn’t provide the context. Go back and provide the whole quote, and you’ll see what I responded to. A non sequitur is an argument. I think you’re trying to say my response was off-topic or irrelevant, not a non sequitur. I stand by my statement that you don’t know what it means.

I have gone back through the posts and I maintain that your post is a non-sequitur meaning it does not follow from elvisman’s post. You are limiting the use of non-sequitur to a formal logical argument. Non-sequitur also applies when statements are un-related.
And if as you say your post is irrelevant, considering that you hold yourself to be highly logical, why would you post something totally irrelevant to the discussion?

Then why are you saying it? That’s pretty disengenuous of you.

You are in IT. If I find IT related matters complicated, it is only complicated to me because my brain is not wired that way. Intellectually, I am deficient in that field. However, all things IT are probably a piece of cake to you. That is all the point I am making. And that is why I said it is not in anyway to belittle your intellect.

Boy, you keep claiming that you don’t mean offense, but you sure keep saying offensive things.

Fortunately for both of us, spiritual maturity is defined in the Bible:

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

“Therefore” means the Hebrew writer was making a conclusion based on his previous statement. He describes what spiritual maturity is NOT, which happens to include teachings about doctrines. At the end of chapter 5, he writes:

Hebrews 5:13-14 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Maturity is the ability to distinguish good from evil, not the ability to describe substance, essence, natures, accidents, and all of Aristotles other teachings.

But it is ignorance that is making you say that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are not spiritual maturity. Or perhaps I should say a considerable lack of knowledge on your part. You have set out yourself as judge and jury of the doctrines of the Catholic Church without having fully comprehended her doctrines, and concluded that her doctrines are not borne of spiritual maturity. This is downright prideful on your part.

You have limited your definition of maturity to Hebrews and expect the Church to be so limited as well. Just because you fail to comprehend transubstantiation, the Church should therefore not even try to grapple with the mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If Ckempston thinks it is not worth bothering about, then most certainly the Catholic Church should not even attempt to explain as well. That is the height of arrogance. The Church already has a magisterium and it is not Ckempston.

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks for sharing your reversion story. I’m not a revert, but have been in a process of trying to figure out where I belong for quite some time. I would tend to agree with you on the “meat and potatoes” and I have enjoyed reading the Catechism and find that I agree with practically everything therein. The problem for me is you can’t just take the “meat and potatoes” of Catholicism, you have to take the appetizer, the main course, the desert, and the after-dinner coffee as well.

I think what you have to determine first off for yourself is whether the Church is who she claims to be.

If you come to the conclusion, that the Church is indeed Christ’s Church; the one He founded on Peter to whom He gave the power to bind and loose and the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail and that the Holy Spirit will guide her into all Truth, then it is safe to say that you indeed must take the appetizer, main course, desert and after dinner coffee.

One cannot be a cafeteria catholic and truly be Catholic. If she is truly Christ’s Church, then whoever listens to her listens to Christ.

All other doctrines will fall into place whether you completely comprehend them or not.

 

[benedictus2]

Since you’re not invested in the CC I’ll put it this way. The NT church (as can be seen in the epistles) has always shown the necessity of right belief. We call it orthodoxy. You can believe what you want as long as it fits into the parameters of orthodoxy. I think you’re trying to indicate that there are more parameters of orthodoxy today than the Church at the time of the Apostles. And that is partly true for varying reasons. What was generally accepted then was taken for granted except those issues revealed in the letters. However, as time moved on people started teaching things which contradicted generally accepted beliefs which needed to be refuted. Paul didn’t have to argue homoosious over homoiosious because it never came up but once it did come up it had to be responded to. And as time moved on more things that attacked the generally accepted beliefs more things had to be addressed. Its a question of orthodoxy.

Very well said!

 

[benedictus2]

True. But also keep in mind that the Decree on Ecumenism warns us against a “false conciliatory approach” or “false irenicism” (depending which translation you read). Mind you, this cuts both ways: I wouldn’t want to use a false conciliatory approach towards Protestants and/or Orthodox, and I wouldn’t them want to use a false conciliatory approach towards us.

Very good point!

 

[Cinette]

Thanks for sharing your reversion story. I’m not a revert, but have been in a process of trying to figure out where I belong for quite some time. I would tend to agree with you on the “meat and potatoes” and I have enjoyed reading the Catechism and find that I agree with practically everything therein. The problem for me is you can’t just take the “meat and potatoes” of Catholicism, you have to take the appetizer, the main course, the desert, and the after-dinner coffee as well.

Hi Ckempston -

What I meant about the “meat and potatoes” was the core, the heart, the very centre of our Church and Catholic Faith. However, since you see it as a Menu I decided to make a Menu for you:

La Carte

Entrée Faith

1st Course The Mass
Oral and Written Tradition (scripture)

Main Course The Eucharist

Dessert The Kingdom of God

Aperitif Salvation

I have to run - no time to embellish my Menu but I am sure others will have ideas on how to improve it…

Ciao!

 

[Cinette]

I’m not trying to misrepresent anything from what you’ve said. What I am trying to do is show that Paul established a principle carried forward by the Church which is that both Paul and the Church respond to ideas which are against orthodoxy. You claim that the Church Defines too much. I’m saying the Church has been put in a position where it must respond to falicious statements by definition not unlike what Paul was doing in Galatians with regard to salvation.

Despite all the “explanations” there have been so many questions. Catholic Answers is a response to those many questions and Catholics have to explain, explain, explain…

Don’t forget that the Catholic Church has had to defend itself constantly. Heretics began to emerge from the time of the Apostles. In our modern world we see literally tons of material written against the Church - so many books, films, documentaries propagating lies. Even Catholics (not properly catechised) have bought into these lies. My husband, who is well read bought into the lies about Pius XII for example.

On other threads I have posed the question: Can anyone name an author or a book by a Catholic propagating lies about the Protestants or Protestant Churches? Guess what? I never got an answer. On the other hand there are Protestants who have made it a career to spread lies and bash the Catholic Church.

Having said that, I must say that I have a huge respect for many Protestants. They keep us on our toes. Some of them have made the most amazing converts to the Catholic Church (we have just received the news of the death of Fr Richard John Neuhaus previously Lutheran Minister). When you look at people like Marcus Grodi, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn and the contribution they have made and you realise that they came from Protestantism and like them, there are many more out there, how can one possibly condemn someone for being Protestant? They can show us a thing or two.

We Catholics are not perfect. As the largest and oldest Christian Church we also have the largest number of sinners…

We have the truth and all we wish to do is share it. :yup: It doesn’t belong to us exclusively.:nope:

 

[sambos671]

Despite all the “explanations” there have been so many questions. Catholic Answers is a response to those many questions and Catholics have to explain, explain, explain…

Don’t forget that the Catholic Church has had to defend itself constantly. Heretics began to emerge from the time of the Apostles. In our modern world we see literally tons of material written against the Church - so many books, films, documentaries propagating lies. Even Catholics (not properly catechised) have bought into these lies. My husband, who is well read bought into the lies about Pius XII for example.

On other threads I have posed the question: Can anyone name an author or a book by a Catholic propagating lies about the Protestants or Protestant Churches? Guess what? I never got an answer. On the other hand there are Protestants who have made it a career to spread lies and bash the Catholic Church.

Having said that, I must say that I have a huge respect for many Protestants. They keep us on our toes. Some of them have made the most amazing converts to the Catholic Church (we have just received the news of the death of Fr Richard John Neuhaus previously Lutheran Minister). When you look at people like Marcus Grodi, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn and the contribution they have made and you realise that they came from Protestantism and like them, there are many more out there, how can one possibly condemn someone for being Protestant? They can show us a thing or two.

We Catholics are not perfect. As the largest and oldest Christian Church we also have the largest number of sinners…

We have the truth and all we wish to do is share it. :yup: It doesn’t belong to us exclusively.:nope:

I don’t disagree with you there seeing as it were that I’ve spent the last 26 years as a protestant. Except the very last statement I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe that there is quite a bit more than 8, possible in the low 20’s but I’m not positive.

True. There are 7 Eastern Rites, but there’s actually more than one Western Rite (the Roman Rite is the only Western Rite that most people know about). So technically, the total number of Rites is more than just 8. (I don’t know exactly how many.)

 

[Bill_Pick]

True. There are 7 Eastern Rites, but there’s actually more than one Western Rite (the Roman Rite is the only Western Rite that most people know about). So technically, the total number of Rites is more than just 8. (I don’t know exactly how many.)

I THINK WE HAVE 28,I MAY BE WRONG I WAS WRONG IN 1942 I THINK. HAHAHAHAHA

 

[Peter_J]

There are, of course, admitted difficulties with my position, including the fact that the Canon was established after the death of the Apostles, though this isn’t exactly revalatory, so I’m not sure if it is such a big problem.

So, the question remains, what did Jesus mean when he said the Apostles would be led into all truth?

Well I don’t know if this will help or not, but I believe that the Deposit of Faith (cf. Jude 3) never changes, even though the circumstances in which we live do change.

So for example if we’re considering the Immaculate Conception, we’ve got 2 logical possibilities: either it has always been in the Deposit of Faith, or it has never been in the Deposit of Faith. (If it isn’t, then no amount of papal decrees will ever put it in.)

(I think we already know which of those two logical possibility you believe, and which one I believe. )

 

[Peter_J]

I THINK WE HAVE 28,

Possibly. In order to count all of the Western rites, you have to count not only the Ambrosian Rite, Bragan Rite, etc., but also the ones that are specific to one religious order, e.g. the Carmelite Rite. So, yes, there are actually quite a few.

I think the relevant question here was, How many Eastern Rites?

I MAY BE WRONG I WAS WRONG IN 1942 I THINK. HAHAHAHAHA

Have you by any chance been watching the Monk marathon today?

 

[sambos671]

Possibly. In order to count all of the Western rites, you have to count not only the Ambrosian Rite, Bragan Rite, etc., but also the ones that are specific to one religious order, e.g. the Carmelite Rite. So, yes, there are actually quite a few.

I think the relevant question here was, How many Eastern Rites?



Have you by any chance been watching the Monk marathon today?

No but I love Monk.

 

[Cinette]

I don’t disagree with you there seeing as it were that I’ve spent the last 26 years as a protestant. Except the very last statement I’m not sure what you mean.

You are right of course - what I should have written was that we have the fulness of the truth: Apostolic Succession, Magisterium, the Sacraments, the complete Bible…

Thank you