There is more than one Catholic Church - How is this possible?

[Javl]

Esdra:

Do I get any responses to my questions, remarks, and comments addressed to you, or am I to be ignored?

Also, do you know that it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to Christianiy? The Catholic Church is called “The Mother of the Bible”. It amazes me no end when anyone says that the Catholic Church’s teaching is not Biblical.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Esdra]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Oh Man:banghead: I am trying to be so good But lets me just address one issue here right now.

Yes Esdra it is biblical. Let me introduce you to the Scripture. Please read 1 Corinithians 7 To the Unmarried and the widows I say that is is WELL for them to REMAIN SINGLE AS I DO. But if they CANNOT execise SELF_CONTROL it is better to marry then to be aflame with passion. 7:8-9

AND WHAT DOES this have to do with celibacy? If ever Paul states in this verse that it’s everybody’s free choice to live in celibacy or not…

And Esdra we really are not at liberty to Go with what You would go with, for Jesus did not leave you any authority to lead the CC.

I AM NOT INTERESTED in leading the CC. I have already said that. I mean you all seem to be so concerned that I come back to the RCC. But I can’t. Because of several issues I have written here all over this forum!

Now you claim the role of women have changed Now tell me Esdra when did God change it? ANd by whom? And lets do it your way. Show me where that is
biblical

Tell me one thing: Why should it in the Bible (which was written 2000 years ago) that the role of women changed in the 21st century?

Women emancipated themselves - they can be found nearly everywhere now (even as construction workers or car mechanics!!) - only in Churches there are no (Catholic/Orthodox) priestesses to be seen. Tell me, why?
This issue is in this case not biblical/theological, but sociological.
I mean, as nearly all of you know, I am not a woman. - But if I were, I would definitely be upset that only me can become (Catholic/Orhodox) priests - and maybe I would as well leave for a Chruch where women have equal rights.

 

[Esdra]

Esdra:

Do I get any responses to my questions, remarks, and comments addressed to you, or am I to be ignored?

Also, do you know that it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to Christianiy? The Catholic Church is called “The Mother of the Bible”. It amazes me no end when anyone says that the Catholic Church’s teaching is not Biblical.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Hi Javl,

so sorry, I really missed you.
I know that I the bible is from the Catholic Church. But this was the Catholic Church of the beginning - I am sure that Christ had protected it at that time and that the canon of the Bible is indeed a infaillable decision of the first Catholics/Christians.
I never said that they don’t teach according to the bible. - I said on the contrary that they do so, but also have “untrue” elements in them. Most of them are to be found in the Catechism and some in the Sacred Tradition you Catholics all seem to love that much.

Please also have a look what I wrote with guanophore in this thread about this topic.

Best wishes,
in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Hi

Sorry, I really didn’t want to offend anyone.

This was only my first impression. I just couldn’t understand why people are walking around in Churches buying religious things rather than paying attention to the gospel proclaimed by the priest and reflecting about it.

I think this has mainly to do that I always have been a protestant in my heart (without even knowing for a long time that they even exist!).

I mean I have always been very bible-believing and the first thing that came to my mind when I was at this serbian orthodox divine mass was the things with the Saducees and Jesus in the Temple - and that he had casted them out.

God bless you,
in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Have you read my post or not? It doesn’t seem so to me.
Were are the differences in the Churches I grouped together, tell me

I read your post. I reject your groupings and your belief that all the Protestant denomations are one big happy family (or the two that you grouped together). There is no Protestant Church, there are not even just two Protestant Churches. There are, however, MANY Protestant traditions and churches. Again, your willingness to turn a blind eye to the differences within Protestantism while focusing on the difference with Catholicism only shows that your problem is not with different or even incorrect doctrine, but with Catholicism.

Well, what about the 21st century?
Do you really think I am talking about the PAST?!

Chronological snobery. Why is the 21st century a better standard than the 20th century? Simply because it is more modern? Your post above proves the point that CS Lewis was trying to make. Something is not better simply because it is more modern.

At least concerning celibacy (by the way that is not even biblical!) and women ordination I would definetely go with the 21st century - well, simply going by the time.
The role of women have changed… There is no patriarchy anymore like it was let’s say 100 years ago. You see my point?

Yes, it’s an error. The Church should not bend to the times, the times should bend to the Church. Do you believe that sinners should convert to Christ or should Christ convert to sinners? This fact, that the Church does not “go with the times” was the reason that the Church was able to survive the fall of the Roman Empire. Horribly paraphrasing Chesterton; if Christianity were just a fad of a backward empire and time, fad would have followed fad in the twilight. Just to cover my bases with references; I believe that was Chesterton’s Orthodoxy.

I think this would be a BIG step towards Eucomeny!!

I have no idea what that word means (if it’s a word:blush, but if it has anything to do with post modernism, doing something for the sole sake because it is modern, I want nothing to do with it

God bless

 

[rinnie]

AND WHAT DOES this have to do with celibacy? If ever Paul states in this verse that it’s everybody’s free choice to live in celibacy or not…

I AM NOT INTERESTED in leading the CC. I have already said that. I mean you all seem to be so concerned that I come back to the RCC. But I can’t. Because of several issues I have written here all over this forum!

Tell me one thing: Why should it in the Bible (which was written 2000 years ago) that the role of women changed in the 21st century?

Women emancipated themselves - they can be found nearly everywhere now (even as construction workers or car mechanics!!) - only in Churches there are no (Catholic/Orthodox) priestesses to be seen. Tell me, why?
This issue is in this case not biblical/theological, but sociological.
I mean, as nearly all of you know, I am not a woman. - But if I were, I would definitely be upset that only me can become (Catholic/Orhodox) priests - and maybe I would as well leave for a Chruch where women have equal rights.

Esdra whats up with you saying that we all are so concerned with you comming back to the CC. Of course we want you to be in the true Church but as many has told you its not our choice it is yours.

You are asking Us to defend our faith, and claim you are here to learn, and ask questions then when we tell you the truth as the Apostles taught you say that we are trying to get you to come back to the Church.

We have no power over you Esdra nor have any desire to. We are just telling you the truth according to the teaching of Christ.

What do you want us to do then, not respond when you ask us or what? I am very confused with what you are asking of us then?

As far as a women wanted to be a Priest the RCC says NO:shrug: What do you want us to say? We understand you disagree with the RCC you make it a point of telling us time after time. We get it. But you ask everyone for scripture then you say that the Church is wrong.

You state what YOU think and everyone here has showed you and taken the time to show you in scripture, ST that what you say is not what the Apostles taught.

You said you are here to learn and get answers. Are you? Or are you here to argue and just state what you think? Tell ya what, I will leave and maybe someone else can give you what you want, because Catholic teachings are not what you want to hear.

God bless you Esdra, and I hope you find what you are looking for.

 

[Esdra]

I read your post. I reject your groupings and your belief that all the Protestant denomations are one big happy family (or the two that you grouped together). There is no Protestant Church, there are not even just two Protestant Churches. There are, however, MANY Protestant traditions and churches. Again, your unwillingness to turn a blind eye to the differences within Protestantism while focusing on the difference with Catholicism only shows that your problem is not with different or even incorrect doctrine, but with Catholicism.

Why don’t you believe me that my two protestant groups are nearly the same in doctrine?
At least in Austria, where they are minority Churches, they are.
The 1st group is and the second as well. This is “nearly ONE denomination”.
What is so wrong about my list at all? Tell me! I really thought about what to write in this post and which Churches to group together!

Anyway, I think it is a bit exaggerated to talk about 30,000+ protestant denominations fighting each other.
There are far less! I found a nice site, but can’t find it at the moment, where there is a nice (and more complete) list, just like mine, of all Protestant denominations. If i happen to find it, i will post it here.

Chronological snobery. Why is the 21st century a better standard than the 20th century? Simply because it is more modern? Your post above proves the point that CS Lewis was trying to make. Something is not better simply because it is more modern.

see below…

Yes, it’s an error. The Church should not bend to the times, the times should bend to the Church. Do you believe that sinners should convert to Christ or should Christ convert to sinners? This fact, that the Church does not “go with the times” was the reason that the Church was able to survive the fall of the Roman Empire. Horribly paraphrasing Chesterton; if Christianity were just a fad of a backward empire and time, fad would have followed fad in the twilight. Just to cover my bases with references; I believe that was Chesterton’s Orthodoxy.

Would it really harm the CC to go, at least a little bit by time? I mean to make it everybody’s free choice to live in celibacy or not (maybe better than banning it entirely!) and the women ordination wouldn’t be too hard, would it?
Only the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches in unity with Rome stick to the denial of women ordination. And only the Catholic Church has a strict celibacy. No even the Orthodox Churches have (except for monasteries, and for becoming a bishop or patriarch!).

I have no idea what that word means (if it’s a word:blush, but if it has anything to do with post modernism, doing something for the sole sake because it is modern, I want nothing to do with it

Okay, I think I should really start using the dictionary.
This is the 2nd time I used a wrong word here in CAF. (Oh, sometimes I really wish, English’d be my mother tongue, not German. It’s nicer anyway! ^^)
So, I meant: **ecumenical Christianity **

God bless

 

[Esdra]

Esdra whats up with you saying that we all are so concerned with you comming back to the CC. Of course we want you to be in the true Church but as many has told you its not our choice it is yours.

You are asking Us to defend our faith, and claim you are here to learn, and ask questions then when we tell you the truth as the Apostles taught you say that we are trying to get you to come back to the Church.

We have no power over you Esdra nor have any desire to. We are just telling you the truth according to the teaching of Christ.

What do you want us to do then, not respond when you ask us or what? I am very confused with what you are asking of us then?

As far as a women wanted to be a Priest the RCC says NO:shrug: What do you want us to say? We understand you disagree with the RCC you make it a point of telling us time after time. We get it. But you ask everyone for scripture then you say that the Church is wrong.

You state what YOU think and everyone here has showed you and taken the time to show you in scripture, ST that what you say is not what the Apostles taught.

You said you are here to learn and get answers. Are you? Or are you here to argue and just state what you think? Tell ya what, I will leave and maybe someone else can give you what you want, because Catholic teachings are not what you want to hear.

God bless you Esdra, and I hope you find what you are looking for.

Well, I think my problem is that you are so absolute when you say something and everything I say is wrong… [not only you, rinnie, also most
others]
We are both right. There is no “one and true Faith”. - There are many. We are all united by Christ Jesus and that we believe in Him.

It is also possible that I read too much into what you are writing.
Maybe I also don’t like the idea that you seem to reject everything I say. I have studied so hard to get to this knowledge of religion and finally I even found Jesus Christ on this journey… And now everything is false. The Catholic Church is false (from mine and from the protestant view), I am false (fromyour and the Catholic view), everybody is false (that’s an exaggeration now…).
Do you get my dilemma?

I AM willing to learn something new. It IS interesting what I learned so far, although it doesn’t convince me that the CC is the absolute true church and has the one and true faith (like what apparently happened with the people in “Surprised by Truth” when they heard similar things… or better said read it.)

Another reason why I went to the Anabaptists ('though I am not really sure what “my” Church is called in English - either Baptists or Anabaptists) is that the doctrine is much simpler: there is the Bible, well - and nothing else… - maybe the one or other catechism of a Reformer (I only got to know so far that they sometimes use Luther’s Catechisms).
The CC is so much more difficult. That’s maybe the reason why most parents don’t want to catechise their kids proberly, because it is simply too much work [and btw.: try a teenage girl/boy to catechise. At least here inAustria. He will call you words and worse {okay, again an exaggeration}]…

Esdra

 

[rinnie]

Well, I think my problem is that you are so absolute when you say something and everything I say is wrong… [not only you, rinnie, also most
others]
We are both right. There is no “one and true Faith”. - There are many. We are all united by Christ Jesus and that we believe in Him.

It is also possible that I read too much into what you are writing.
Maybe I also don’t like the idea that you seem to reject everything I say. I have studied so hard to get to this knowledge of religion and finally I even found Jesus Christ on this journey… And now everything is false. The Catholic Church is false, I am false, everybody is false.
Do you get my dilemma?

I AM willing to learn something new. It IS interesting what I learned so far, although it doesn’t convince me that the CC is the absolute true church and has the one and true faith (like what apparently happened with the people in “Surprised by Truth” when they heard similar things… or read it.)

Esdra

Esdra not according to the word of God. Esdra nothing will convince you. You are set to take the word of God and change it to what you want it to be. But you can’t no one can.

Do you not think that I also get corrected by my brothers and sisters here on the RCC teachings also. And many times I think I am right and they are wrong. But I do not argue, I say I am not seeing it the way you said but I will find out who is right and who is wrong.

Then I go to the RCC and I ask. And many times I am the one who was right, but many times I was not right. But at least I found out the truth as Jesus taught it. That is what counts.

But if I go to the RCC and am told I am wrong and I refuse to accept it whats the purpose. I mean why would I ask the Church if I refused to accept its teaching. We are telling you what the Church teaches. And if I tell you something that is wrong I will be called on it and I should. Because every single Catholic here will agree with me on one Thing. There is only ONE TRUTH.

And to say well here is my truth and here is yours and the if it feels good do it kind of thinking will not get us into heaven. Personally if you refuse to accept the teachings of the RCC thats cool with me. But I refuse to lie to you, and others here are the same. And if we give a false teaching we will correct eachother and have a Church that will also correct us. We will all come back with ONE TRUTH and it will be the same if it came from the HOLY SPRIIT. It is impossible to be any other way.

 

[rinnie]

And trust me little buddy not one of us are ABSOLUTE when we speak. It is the Church that is ABSOLUTE. Not one of us claim to have the gift of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. And if we say we do we are a liar. That is a gift of the Church and the leaders only. The Holy Spirit does not speak through us, it has to come from the Church.

 

[Esdra]

And trust me little buddy not one of us are ABSOLUTE when we speak. It is the Church that is ABSOLUTE. Not one of us claim to have the gift of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. And if we say we do we are a liar. That is a gift of the Church and the leaders only. The Holy Spirit does not speak through us, it has to come from the Church.

That’s exact the opposite what was taught me when I freshly came into the protestant range of Churches.
My spiritual mom, a pentecostal, told me that we are all guided by the HS because Jesus has commanded to ALL OF US to lead us (through His Word) to the fulness of truth (not only the apostles!)

My pastor told me that the HS will guide to “understand” and interpret the Holy Bible…

 

[rinnie]

That’s exact the opposite what was taught me when I freshly came into the protestant range of Churches.
My spiritual mom, a pentecostal, told me that we are all guided by the HS because Jesus has commanded to ALL OF US to lead us (through His Word) to the fulness of truth (not only the apostles!)

My pastor told me that the HS will guide to “understand” and interpret the Holy Bible…

There you go. And the bible says the exact opposite. There is nowhere in the bible that it states that the bible can teach or intepret scripture. The bible says it is the Church that will lead you to all truth.

Now if you could show us where the bible or Sacred Tradition states that the Holy Spriit will lead us all to the fullness of the truth without the Apostles or the Church then we have something to debate. But the bible itself states to stick to he early teachers of the Church.

Here is the scripture

1 Tim 3:15 If I should be delayed you should know how to behave in the household of God wh ich is the CHURCH of the LIVING GOD the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH.

So what they told you is exactly the opposite of what scripture says If we were all guided by God on our own to know how to behave why would scripture state that we are to go to the Church. What would be the purpose of the Church the Living God? We would all have the truth within our self would you not agree. We would not need the Church. We could baptise ourself, we could forgive our own sins, we could change bread and wine into the living Christ ourself. We would not need a Church nor a leader of a Church.

Tell me if your spiritual Mom told you all of this why does she need a Church. Would she not have all of this within. Why does she go to church if this is all given to her by the Holy Spirit without the leaders and the Church. I see no reason for any of you to go to Church or learn anything if you claim the Holy Spirit teaches you all individually. This makes no sense to me.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

That’s exact the opposite what was taught me when I freshly came into the protestant range of Churches.
My spiritual mom, a pentecostal, told me that we are all guided by the HS because Jesus has commanded to ALL OF US to lead us (through His Word) to the fulness of truth (not only the apostles!)

[SIGN]My pastor told me that the HS will guide to “understand” and interpret the Holy Bible…

[/SIGN]

Then ask you Pastor for Me Esdra to explain this scripture.

Acts 15:7 My brothers you are well AWARE that from early days GOD made his CHOICE among you that through MY MOUTH the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and Believe.

Who are you going to listen to Esdra? IF God wanted us to hear the word without the Apostles was Peter lying?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Why don’t you believe me that my two protestant groups are nearly the same in doctrine?

“Nearly the same in doctrine” is subjective. It is you who is deciding that this and that church are “close enough” to your standard when in reality there are major differences within Protestantism.

I don’t hate protestants, I don’t even hate protestant churches. I truly believe, like the CCC teaches, that God uses Protestant churches as means of salvation. I don’t look down on protestants or their worship. I don’t find protestants insincere. I don’t think that they are stubborn. I don’t dismiss their objections as being from those who are “ignorant or arrogant”. I do however have a big problem with the mind set that this is a Catholic v Protestant issue. It is just as much a Protestant v Protestant situation.

The 1st group is and the second as well. This is “nearly ONE denomination”.
What is so wrong about my list at all? Tell me! I really thought about what to write in this post and which Churches to group together!

Because it’s wrong. If I remembered your list correctly you have Churches which teach Predestination mixed with those who teach free will. You have Churches which follow the teachings of Ellen White, with those who reject her. You have Churches who believe in 2 sacraments with those that believe in 7 all with those that reject sacraments all together. You have churches which teach baptismal regeneration with churches which teach baptism as an “outward sign of an inward grace”. You have churches which ordain women with those who reject the practice.

Anyway, I think it is a bit exaggerated to talk about 30,000+ protestant denominations fighting each other.

I have never talked about 30,000 denominations. I have however argued that the situation Christianity finds itself in can be described as Protestant vs Protestant just as easy as it can be described as Catholic vs. Protestant. I would rather Protestants just realize that the issues they have with Catholics can be (many of them anyways) found within their Protestant circles. Again Esdra, why turn a blind eye to the differences in Protestantism and focus so much on Catholicism?

There are far less! I found a nice site, but can’t find it at the moment, where there is a nice (and more complete) list, just like mine, of all Protestant denominations. If i happen to find it, i will post it here.

I believe you that there are. My point is not about how many Protestant churches there are but about the differences with the Protestant churches which exist. Be it 30 or 30,000.

Okay, I think I should really start using the dictionary.
This is the 2nd time I used a wrong word here in CAF. (Oh, sometimes I really wish, English’d be my mother tongue, not German. It’s nicer anyway! ^^)
So, I meant: **ecumenical Christianity **

Gotcha I am very open to ecumenism. In fact the approach that I am discussing with you would make ecumenism far easier than your approach. If Protestants realize that they have just as many differences with fellow Protestants as they do with Catholics it may get them to drop their… well defenses (for lack of a better word) and open up to discussions with Catholics. Not that the break downs in ecumenism is all the fault of protestants

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

We are both right. There is no “one and true Faith”. - There are many. We are all united by Christ Jesus and that we believe in Him.

Esdra, there is only one faith:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. Eph. 4:5-6

It’s the Christian faith. Please take the time to read the Catechism to see what the Church says about its separated brothers and sisters. Protestants are not members of different faiths. There is one faith.

And now everything is false

Not everything. There is much truth in Protestantism. I have found much value in some of the writings of Protestants.

God bless you

 

[guanophore]

You really can’t tell me that the popes didn’t approve this behavior in the points mentioned above!

Esdra, if a man chooses to sin, and another man supports him in his sins, they are both guilty of sin. Charging Jesus with their wrongdoing when they have chosen to depart from His instruction does not make any sense.

If the CC is really the one Church established by Christ Jesus - then why didn’t he stop those actions?

Jesus’ promise to preserve the Church was made to the Church, not those who depart from it by sinning. If people stay within the safety of the Church, they can benefit from His promise. If not, they lose out on the promise. He said He would lead the Church into al truth, not take away individual’s freedom to sin.

Why didn’t he react when he got to know what his representator on Earth is doing?

What sort of “reaction” did you expect?

If I was god, and this was really my church, I would have reacted at once to protect it from such sinful actions!!

And so He has, which is why the Church continues infallible.

There we are. Why should they be false and the teachings of the (R)CC should be correct? I am convinced it can be also vice versa.

Because the HS does not reveal things to people 2000 years after the fact that are opposite of what He has already revealed to the Church. The deposit of faith was made “once for all”. Those who have invented new doctrines have departed from it.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Who says they didn’t get out of a dead end - of Catholcism?

Because there is no “dead end” in Catholicism!

How do you know then if not also parts of the teachings were going into the wrong direction, if you admit that people in the CC have gone astray? I would really get scincere doubts there!

Jesus has kept HIs promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”. Individuals have always, and always will, go astray. This does not change the infallible teaching of the Church. All it means is that they have departed from it.

?? Don’t really get it. What do the Apostles forbid? Not to follow his successors?

Yes, the Apostles taught that those who were ordained had the authority of God, and that the disciples should obey them as such.

The teachings of the Apostles are to be found in the NT! - So it is enough to follow the apostles according to what they wrote in the NT (whose canon the early Church throught the Holy Ghost fixed - as we know in the meantime!

Some of them are, but not all of them. For example,the Apostles taught that not all of the Truth is written in scripture. It is NOT enough just to have a Bible! If that were the case, then Jesus was wasting His time building a Church! He should have spent his life writing, instead of training men.

So again: Of course not everything is wrong in the CC. Especially the early CC was lead pretty well by the HS, if would say.)

And at what point does the Bible tell you the HS abandoned the Church?

It says in the NT. Why should the understanding be deficient then?

Your understanding of the nature of the Church is deficient because you do not include all of the scripture, for one thing, and for another, you have rejected the Apostolic Succession.

We all are disciples of Christ and he promised us to send us the Holy Ghost which will lead us into the fulness of truth (and also is the key to the Scriptures! -

This promise was only given to the Church, and does not apply to those who separate themselves from her.

I am Catholic baptised, yes. I haven’t joined heresies,

You dont’ realize that you have, but you have. One of the most insidious is Sola Scriptura, as it spawns most of the rest of them. Your deficient understanding of the nature of the Church is another. It is not your fault.

If I believe in Jesus Christ I am in his Body (even if I wasn’t baptized!)

This statement also contradicts the scripture.

BUT why didn’t Jesus so drastically react when the Church (which is btw of course errant! see my various posts on that topic!) went astray the one or other occation?

The church cannot be errant, because Jesus is her head. Members of her can err, and he will correct them, just as He did in Rev.

Isn’t that enough?

No. If you think that the body of believers here on earth is all there is to the Church, then you have a defiicient understanding of Church.

 

[rinnie]

Esdra, if a man chooses to sin, and another man supports him in his sins, they are both guilty of sin. Charging Jesus with their wrongdoing when they have chosen to depart from His instruction does not make any sense.

Jesus’ promise to preserve the Church was made to the Church, not those who depart from it by sinning. If people stay within the safety of the Church, they can benefit from His promise. If not, they lose out on the promise. He said He would lead the Church into al truth, not take away individual’s freedom to sin.

What sort of “reaction” did you expect?

And so He has, which is why the Church continues infallible.

Because the HS does not reveal things to people 2000 years after the fact that are opposite of what He has already revealed to the Church. The deposit of faith was made “once for all”. Those who have invented new doctrines have departed from it.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Because there is no “dead end” in Catholicism!

Jesus has kept HIs promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”. Individuals have always, and always will, go astray. This does not change the infallible teaching of the Church. All it means is that they have departed from it.

Yes, the Apostles taught that those who were ordained had the authority of God, and that the disciples should obey them as such.

Some of them are, but not all of them. For example,the Apostles taught that not all of the Truth is written in scripture. It is NOT enough just to have a Bible! If that were the case, then Jesus was wasting His time building a Church! He should have spent his life writing, instead of training men.

And at what point does the Bible tell you the HS abandoned the Church?

Your understanding of the nature of the Church is deficient because you do not include all of the scripture, for one thing, and for another, you have rejected the Apostolic Succession.

This promise was only given to the Church, and does not apply to those who separate themselves from her.

You dont’ realize that you have, but you have. One of the most insidious is Sola Scriptura, as it spawns most of the rest of them. Your deficient understanding of the nature of the Church is another. It is not your fault.

This statement also contradicts the scripture.

The church cannot be errant, because Jesus is her head. Members of her can err, and he will correct them, just as He did in Rev.

No. If you think that the body of believers here on earth is all there is to the Church, then you have a defiicient understanding of Church.

Guan I hate to keep repeating myself but you are truly amazing for the time and studying you have done to learn the Teachings of the CC. Thank you so much. I hope some day to continue in my studys and will be able to come back so quick and accurate as you can.

You are a Credit to our faith! But I am doing as you told me awhile ago and continue to study the teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church. So I know the time that you have invested.

 

[guanophore]

I would say it’s great that everybody who believes to Christ Jesus and sticks to His Word, the Holy Bible (withough other Holy Scriptures or Traditions or other “unbiblical stuff”) is in His Church.

This is a good summary of one of the Reformation heresies.

Why do you absolutely want that only Catholics are in His Church?

I did not say anything of the sort. Jesus will have in His Church anyone He wants, whether they are visible as Catholics here on earth, or not. By the time they get to heaven, they will all be Catholic.

Why does the Catholic Church want that at all? Wasn’t it Jesus who came to everybody, even to the sinners and poor and ill?

Well, yes, and even to pharisees, but you are much too good and holy to fraternize with THOSE people. Someone might think you were mentally ill!

Why would Jesus all of sudden only want to have a specific group of “Christians” (Christians in quotation marks because I doubt that the CC thinks that they even are! Which is ignorant btw!) in His Church?

Jesus wants His disciples to have the fullness of the Truth, and it is found in the Catholic Church.

I don’t. I try to prove everything I hear on the Holy Scriptures!

This is a noble thought, but the Scriptures were not created for “proof texting” or extrapolating doctrine. Right doctrine is to be RECEIVED from those to whom it was entrusted. Then the Scriptures testify to the Truth of what was passed on. This is what made the Bereans more noble. They RECEIVED the Apostolic Teaching with eagerness.

The Eucharist or better said the Last Supper is indeed the  sign of unity of all Christians. All denominations who aren't sects practice it, don't they? They all have open communion (even the Lutherans and the Old Catholics/Utrecht!)

No.

No, it's not. It is the only way the CC can exist in future!

I am certainly releived that you are not in a postiion of authority in the Catholic Church. You berate those who were, and departed from the Apostolic faith, all the while insisting that this is what needs to be done! You are a great example of how individuals rationalize departing from the faith.

 Believe me, my prediction will become true the sooner the later. Latest if we get a liberal (eucumenical orientated) Black-African pope! This is what my dad keeps saying for years now!

I hope we do get a Black - African pope who is as fervent as Athanasius. However, it is not necessary to be liberal to be ecumencal. Ecumenism is not furthered by departure from the Truth.

The Old Catholic Church/Utrecht is not into error and also abandoned the faith.

Either one of these is true, or the other, but they cannot both be true. Having studied that schismatic sect, I knjow that they have departed from the faith.

If ever, I would have guessed that the “first Catholic Church” was more similar to the Old Catholic Church than to the Roman Catholic Church (except for the ordination of women [but stop! who knows? Maybe!!] - due to patriarchatic times which are over in the 21. century, as you already may have realized! )

The Church’s inability to ordain women has nothing to do with patriarchy.

Men cannot give birth, either, and that has nothing to do with Matriarchy.

I am even free to believe in Christ Jesus and not believe in the (Roman) Catholic Church .

Clearly. Some use this freedom as an exuse to sin.

We don’t need the gift of infallibility. The Holy Bible read by the Holy Ghost is enough!

Another great summary of a Reformation Heresy. You have got them down!

By the way: as far as I know the gift of infallibility is not biblical. Otherwise please show me the verse. - I am interested.

Clearly there are many things the Apostles believed and taught that you think are not “biblical”. It is because your perceptions of what is “biblical” are separated from the Apostolic faith.

No, I really don’t understand this! Wouldn’t it be the duty of the Church to teach the people how to live according to the word of God? Do they so? No,

Yes, but even more so, it is the duty of the teachers to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. There are many pastors and teachers that fall short in this.

what they did for the last few years is saying that sexuality is bad for example - and other moralic dogmas!

I am not sure who you mean by “they”, but this is clearly not a teaching of the Church. On the contrary, the Church teaches that sexuality is a gift from God, and reflects His Divine Nature.

 

[guanophore]

See, this is the problem with the Catholic Church and the infant baptism (especially when you are poorley catechised afterward, which most people are!). If you are “forced” to become Catholic but never catechised and you start longin for Christ,

We are born with a longing for Christ. It is part of our human nature. We are created to seek Him. No one is "forced"into the faith. OR do you believe that Jewish babies are “forced” because they are circumcised? IT is a gift to be brought into a covenant with God.

isn't it logical then, if you start searching among "heresies" or even worse sects?.

Hunger does make people do things that they would not necessarily do if they are well fed. I have read many stories of cannabalism.

But if you decide YOURSELF for Christ Jesus, it is more likely that you live a Christian life because you love Him!

This is very true. For some reason you think that the Catholics who do this are mentally ill fanatics.

Well, its clear that you will always tell me that I've been misled when I say something else than the official doctrine of the CC. ;)

Nevertheless, I know it’s true.

Yes, you have got my number. Just because you believe in your heart of hearts that something is true does not make it so. Truth is not defined by your personal opinion, whether you believe you have been led by the HS, or not.

What, it didn’t? What about Peter then, the “first pope”. I don’t really get it!

Peter had no clue how the position he occupied was going to develop. Although he followed our Lord’s instruction to give Apostolic succession to many after himself, the role of the Pope took centuries to expand. IT grew along with the plant that was a mustard seed when Peter was alive. He could never have imagined people like yourself, who fervently claim to believe in Christ, yet reject what He taught.

Do you know what this means then? That the Old Catholic Church, the Anglican Church , the Episcopal Church and the Orthodox Churches are true Churches. So there IS more then one true Church?!

No, Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH.

I thought the Eucharist is the visible symbol of unity?

It is. That is why it is important for those who are not in unity to receive it. Those who have departed from the Apostolic faith no longer share unity with the Church He founded.

If this is really the case then I have to become Agnostic because then Jesus didn’t give us the Holy Spirit and we are not able to read the Bible,

This is not true! plenty of agnostics and faithless people read the bible all the time! there are as many interpretations of it as there are belly buttons.

because there is no key to read it (which would be the Holy Spirit). See, my problem with this point?

I do see your problem. You don’t see that the Key was given to Peter.

And you really think that god would throw a faithful Christian into hell, simply because he is not Catholic? Do you really think god is so stingy?! Finally he promised us that everybody who believes in His name is saved:

You have misread the scriptures again, Esdra. This is not all that Jesus said was needed to be saved. He also said that many would call Him Lord, and would not do the things He has said.

"**Mk 16,16** Whoever **believes and is baptised will be saved**, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. "

Jn 10,9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.
Rom 10,9 That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is [the] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Well, se above. I guess this answers this one…

I see that you would like to cherry pick a little hand ful of scriptures from which to build your soteriology,b ut your house is built upon sand. This is not what the apostles believed and taught. Did you ever notice what the believers did on the day of Pentecost? I see that this is left out of your little formula.

 

[Javl]

Hi Javl,

so sorry, I really missed you.
I know that I the bible is from the Catholic Church. But this was the Catholic Church of the beginning - I am sure that Christ had protected it at that time and that the canon of the Bible is indeed a infaillable decision of the first Catholics/Christians.
I never said that they don’t teach according to the bible. - I said on the contrary that they do so, but also have “untrue” elements in them. Most of them are to be found in the Catechism and some in the Sacred Tradition you Catholics all seem to love that much.

Please also have a look what I wrote with guanophore in this thread about this topic.

Best wishes,
in Christ,
Esdra

Thank you for your answer. I’m sorry to say but you are in total error in regards to what the Catholic Church teaches. If you do some research into Catholicism you will find that it teaches the exact same thing today that was given to it by Jesus and the Apostles 2000 years ago. If it doesn’t then you can call Jesus a liar and con man.

Jesus said that He will be with His Church always and that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide it and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against it. The Catholic Church, therefore, cannot be in error or teach error.

Remember also that Jesus gave His Church the authority to “bind and loose”. The biggest change ( bind ) that the Church made was to keep the Sabbath ( this means rest, not Saturday ) on a Sunday in honor and commemoration of Jesus death and resurrection. It has used this authority sparingly.

I don’t know what all your objections are, but if you wish to discuss them, I am available for your edification.

God Bless

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem