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

[minkymurph]

Esdra, in response to your post I would make the following points:

I would not tell anyone they were brainwashed. If someone was brainwashed, would they know? Is not the whole point of brainwashing the person doesn’t know they are brainwashed? An acquaintance once told me he knew he was sane. My response was, if you were insane, would you know? Is it not the person who questions their sanity the one who is sane? Sorry but I like engaging in silly philosophical debates; did unicorns ever really exist, is there such a thing as a true story and was Santa’s reindeer Rudolph really female. I have a warped sense of humour!

On a serious note:
There is no historical evidence the first Catholic Church was Roman. It’s a common misconception that Constantine founded the first Roman Church. The Christian Church in Rome existed before Constantine and there is no historical evidence he hijacked it with his beliefs.

The term Catholic means universal. It expresses the belief that faith is given to everyone and not an elite group. The term ‘denomination’ to me is unique to reformed Churches. There are not denominations of Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists etc. etc. There are various sects wtihin Judaism, but they are all Jews.

The Catholic Church is not ‘more true’ than other Churches. I believe, I emphasise the word believe as if we could prove everything, we would have no need of faith, there are more divinely revealed truth’s contained in the teachings of Catholicism than any other Christian denomination. All Christian denominations contain divinely revealed truth but I believe Catholicism goes that extra mile. Some are afraid of that as they are sincerely afraid of believing something ‘wrong.’ My arguement would be if you have never known what is false can you know what is true? One of my weird philosophical arguements again.#

If a particular faith or denomination does not profess a certain belief, and that belief is a divinely revealed truth, those who profess that faith cannot enhance their understanding of divinely revealed truth, simply because they do not believe something that has been revealed. That does not mean they don’t believe anything that has been revealed.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Esdra,

The first Catholic Church WAS Roman. At least when it became main religion in 312 AD!

I have to interject right here, because I think you are misinformed, regardless that your father agrees with you on certain points.

The ‘312AD’ date seems to be bandied about quite a bit by anti-Catholic apologetics, but it has no basis in reality.

312AD was a significant date in history because general Constantine became convinced a Christian in that year, but the city of Rome and the Roman empire was not Christian. The Senate was not Christian, and the pagan cults were still active. There is no evidence that elements of paganism entered Christianity at the time. There was a clear contrast between the two religious systems.

I have already quoted earlier that the early church (1st - 2nd century) had bishops and the Eucharist (with a firm belief in the Real Presence of Christ). What they did not have was legal status, so they did not enjoy the luxury of church buildings and did not normally sing in worship (for fear of being reported).

Most of the rest of the things people associate with ‘Catholics’ are simply accoutrement. Many are a result of custom.

For instance, I don’t know what it is like in your church but around here men very often wear suits to religious services,especially the pastors .

https://www.goshen.edu/blogs/

This is strictly a matter of custom. Buddhists often wear suits and pagans wear suits, Muslims do too and certainly atheists wear suits (but not for worship). That a Christian wants to wear a western business-style suit to worship is not to introduce pagan elements into worship, it’s just an expression of the culture.

You will encounter a lot of things like that if you look.

{continued below}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

Now for the facts:

Christianity was not made the official religion in 312AD, and general Constantine did not control the church. In fact, he did not even control the empire! He shared control of the western half (the poorer less developed regions) with another man. His capital was Milan, not Rome.

He called a council of bishops to Arles (now a part of France), which met in 314AD, but he didn’t name those bishops, he didn’t even know most of them. They had been in the service of Christ already, when it was a dangerous crime to be Christian.

That Council addressed some very basic issues facing the church at the time, and a summary of the decrees is available for your reading. You will find that they did not adopt any pagan beliefs at the council.

Twelve years later, after a nasty bloody civil war, general Constantine (later to be revered as a saint) assumed complete control of the eastern half of the empire. He called another council o all the bishops of the empire, to gather at the imperial palace at Nicaea. He paid all of their expenses. These bishops were not named by him, and the decrees of the council are available for study. There was no introduction of paganism into the church.

The council was famous for producing the first draft of the Christian Creed, which should be familiar to almost all Christians, perhaps even some Anabaptists.

Christianity did not become the state sponsored religion of the Roman Empire until Theodosius (who was at first reluctant to do so) made it so in 380AD. He formally endorsed the creedal beliefs laid out at Nicea in 324AD.

This is the original form of the Creed, hammered out at Nicaea, based upon the baptismal formulae in use at the time in the east …

"We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, both in heaven and in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; And in the Holy Spirit.

And those who say: “There was a time when he was not”, and: “Before he was begotten he was not”, and: “He came into being from nothing”, or those who pretend that the Son of God is “of another substance” [than the Father] or “created” or “alterable” or “mutable”, the catholic and apostolic church places under a curse."

Nothing at all pagan about this Creed. The canons of the council are available here, you may read them (as well as the canons of other councils) at your leisure, the Faith is an open subject.

It should be noted that the very first nation to ever officially become Christian was Armenia, in 301 AD (Christianity first reached them in the First century). It is not Roman, had no connection with Saint Constantine and was formed before the church council in the empire hammered out the Nicene Creed, so one might think they were very similar to the Anabaptists in practice and belief. But no…

They have the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, with bishops and priests to confect it. They invoke the prayers of the saints, just like the rest of us. And they adopted the Nicene Creed after it was crafted and sent to them for review.

Christianity reached India before Constantine reigned. One might think that they would reflect Anabaptist creedless religious thought. They do of course reflect an early Christianity, because they have a strong tradition of their Jewish roots! You may read about the Knanaya Christians from any source and decide for yourself.

The Knanaya of south India believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist just like the rest of us. This requires bishops and priests, which they do have.

From India and Persia Christianity reached China by the seventh century, no connection with the Roman church whatever. There is archeological evidence of their presence. They had bishops, priests and monks!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/Stone_1-1-.jpg

This does not reflect the vision of the church the radical reformers had imagined for it, and can not be attributable to Constantine nor the Roman empire nor even European paganism.

Blessings to you,

 

[Justin1982]

Suffice it to say that the early Christians had to adapt their times of worship to that of the pagan believers of the same era to avoid persecution, makes all too much sense to me at least. Christianity was not the official religion until 381 if I’m not mistaken, that would make about 350 years of persecution of a particular belief system.

I’m not sure I can understand this secular view of world history, of course it was biased by the Church, the Church was the everything to everybody in western society for much of the middle ages. I’ve seen statistics where 1 in every 4 people were part of religious order or priesthood during the middle ages. Historians were Christian, scientists were Christian, leaders were all Christian in the west. The amazing thing is that you take the views of modern historians who try to push an agenda by removing key points and creating half truths. This happened in America where around 1880 a shift in accepted history from religious beliefs to economic trends allowed the atheist view of why America broke from England giving the excuse of only “taxation without representation”. Founding documents show that was reason number 17 of 27 on the Declaration of Independence.

What is your view of the Crusades, based on your secular history class?

 

[guanophore]

I have just gone back to your original questions Esdra. What makes all the Churches you mention above Catholic is they all profess the same creed; the Nicene Creed.

It is more than this, although it includes this. There are many of our separated brethren that profess this creed, even though some of them do not understand the words in the same way the Apostles did.

They differ in practice and culture, not belief.

This is an accurate statement about the 23 rites of Catholicism.

Anglican's have a belief in Real Presence.  However, they believe the Eucharist is transformed by on consumation rather than by the Holy Spirit operating through the power of the priest.  It is a concept know as consubstantiation.  Luther believed this.

I am not sure this is correct. I am not sure that chasing this rabbit is a good idea on this thread, either.

What makes the Roman Catholic Church Roman Catholic is the centre of administration. Other Catholic churches, eg: Eastern Churches, have their own administration centre. Rome is also the central teaching office of Roman Catholicism. Other Catholic Churches have different views on the role of the Pope in the Church and Papal authority.

This is not accurate. What distinguishes all the Rites is language and culture. The Latin Rite uses Latin as the ecclesial and liturgical language, and follows customs that are from ancient Roman times. The same is true of the other Rites - different languages, liturgy, dress, culture. Yet they are all the same in doctrine.

All of the 22 other Rites are in communion with the successor of Peter, which means that they consider Rome to be the center of doctrinal unity. He is the visible sign of unity in th echruch, and the central teaching office of all the Rites.

They do not have different views on the role of the pope or papal authority. If they did, they would not be in communion with him.

What you describe here is true for our Eastern Orthodox brethren, who do have adminstrations separate from the successor of Peter, and do have different concepts of his role in the Church. It is these differences that still divide us from the EO. All of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches have overcome these and been able to be re-united with the Latin Rite.

  The Anglican Church does reject the view that the Pope has a unique role in guiding the Church, but differ from Roman Catholics in relation to what this means.

Did you mean to say that they accept that there is a unique role for the successor of Peter?

Churches that reject beliefs concerning the Pope’s unique role and profess a creed other than the Nicene creed are not Catholic.

I agree, which kinda refutes what you said about the Eastern Rite Catholics above.

But there are also other things that make them not Catholic. Most of our separated brethren will claim the nicene creed.

 

[guanophore]

Yeah, it’s really said that I didn’t found those people in the Catholic Church…

It is really sad. It took me many years to realize that they were there all along, and that it was my perceptions that prevented me from “seeing” them. It was the log in my own eye that was making it impossible to see what was right in front of me.

Of course I am aware of that. I know that many things I am saying here and I believe in are not Catholic. Otherwise I would be a Catholic, wouldn’t I?

I am not sure. Some people have such a hostility against the Catholic Church that they cannot even accept Christ from her.

It is a puzzle why you would embrace a belief if you know that it is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Well, again, this is one of the points we will never agree on. I know that the ONE CHURCH in scripture is the community of believers. Nothing more. What I meant was there will never be a one, visible Church!

One must ignore a great deal of Scripture and history to cling to such a belief. I wonder why it would be important to blind oneself in this way?

I have read his post and also commented it. I like his idea! And this is the only Chance that there might be once a united, visible Church. – A big tent Church where everyone can find his place. The people honouring Mary, those honouring saints and using icons and so on!

If you got sucked into that drivel, then you have left the path of wisdom.

There is nothing that humans can do to unite ourselves. Unity comes from adherance to the Truth, Jesus made this clear. Our humanistic efforts to tolerate and excuse departures from the Truth so that we can all “get along” are misguided and fruitless.

Jesus founded a united and visible Church, and it remains so to this day because He promised to preserve it,an lead it into “all truth”. It is He who is our “only chance”, not mamby pamby ecumensim that compromises Truth.

• It does work in the Eucumenical Movement, doesn’t it? This is the step into the right direction. As long as parts of the body of Christ, like the Anabaptists, are rejected by the Catholic Church and also by the Orthodox Churches - well even by some of their protestand brothers and sisters - there won’t be a dialogue or anything!

Dialog is good. The Catholic Church rejects no one - just false doctrine.

But actually this is what I got to know! Saying that Anabaptists are sects (and all other Evangelical movements and denominations as well, well that even Lutherans are sects! Is this not rejecting for you?

Not a bit. I love my separated brethren. If I did not, I would not be here! Loving them does not mean that I have to accept the heresies that have been promulgated. I am not at liberty to do so.

I think there are quite often in the Catholic Church major differences between what the official doctrine is and what people actually do.

There is no doubt about this. If all Catholics in America lived according to what they claimed to believe, this country would be heading in a very different direction.

This is one of the reasons, as I have written previously, why I can’t go back to the Catholic Church. It is really sad that you don’t understand German; otherwise I would have directed you to the homepage of the Old Catholics united with Utrecht. This is what I would understand under Catholicism, if ever. (altkatholiken.at/)

I studied the Old Catholics from the Utrecht succession.

If you cannot be Catholic because you feel a need to embrace theologies that are a departure from what the Aposltes believed and taught, then you are not ready for the privilege of being Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Well, seen from the Catholic, apostolic prospective, certainly! But I am aware of that!
I am sure about that (The Catholic Church wasn’t found by Christ). This is what I got to know from (secular) history!

Yes, I came to the same false conclusion based upon the same false premises. It is amazing how easy it is to end up with the wrong outcome when you are starting with misinformation.

Well, I am always ready to learn something new. But this doesn’t mean that I am considering going back to the Catholic Church! – If you think that. Actually I have learned really a lot about my (former) Catholic faith here. But this doesn’t mean that I think this is true. I know what I believe, as I have said before.

You will be in our prayers. I do hope you will continue to learn. Sometimes you don’t seem very open minded.

Well, again to argue about with… If really the HS guided the Catholic Church, how then do you explain things like the burning of witches and heretics?

Men departing from the teaching of the faith, and committing sins.

People have been departing from the faith and committing sin since the beginning of the Church! How do you explain ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts?

The brutal and bloody prosecution of the first Protestants like the Katharer and so on? Yes, maybe He guided this Church. But certainly not always!

No, Esdra. Men who have departed from the tenents of the faith to commit murder do not define what is true. Truth is not defined by those who depart from it. The Church has never taught that these actions are right. Plenty of people commit atrocities in the name of religion. Some soldiers commit atrocities when they are fighting for the United States, but it does not mean the country approves of such behavior. You are confusing the actions of sinful individuals with the values and teachings of the Church, and this is a logical error.

I think this is comparable with the Jews in the OT. The LORD did guide them most of the time, but not always.

If you believe this then you really have a warped perspective of God,a nd the OT. God has ALWAYS guided His people. He has never left them, or forsaken them. The fact that certain people did not follow His guidance does not mean it was not present!

Well, as I have said in some believes the Church was certainly guided by the Holy Spirit. Like in the bible issue, mentioned by you above and also the Nicene Creed.

So, we are in agreement that the Catholic Church produced the Bible? How can you trust that it is accurate, since you believe that same Church had fallen into Paganism?

How do you know which parts of the Church teaching to accept,a nd which to reject?

How can you accept the Scripture, but not the Apostolic Authority by which it was formed?

Not everything is wrong in the Catholic Church.

whew! You don’t know how relieved I am to hear you make this pronouncement.

I was getting really worried there for a while.

Thank God you are available to discern these things!

The term protestant also only means that you protest against parts of the doctrine and not at all of it! – So do I and I think most of my brothers and sisters in the evangelical Churches.

It is true that our separated brethren have retained a great many Catholic doctrines. It is the Catholicism that has been retained that is able to unite us still, in spite of so many heresies having crept in.

Well, again – I am sure about that. I was even sure about that before I became Anabaptist.

How could it be otherwise, since you were so poorly catechized? You seem to have had very little education at all in the Catholic faith. It is not difficult to be led astray when one is not well anchored.

And by chance my thoughts about the matters I am writing about here overlap with the reformatory theology.

I think it is not by chance.

Or is it by the grace of Jesus? By his Holy Spirit?

No. The HS does not guide an individual into a direction opposite from what He has already revealed to His Church.

 

[minkymurph]

It is more than this, although it includes this. There are many of our separated brethren that profess this creed, even though some of them do not understand the words in the same way the Apostles did.

I agree, there is more than this. There’s only so much one can say in one post and you have to start somewhere to explain something to someone else. I couldn’t comment on whether separated bretheren understand the words of the Creed in the same way the Apostles did or not.

I am not sure this is correct. I am not sure that chasing this rabbit is a good idea on this thread, either.

Not sure what you mean by chasing a rabbit. Perhaps this makes the point about different cultures.

The point I was making is one of the identifying marks of a Catholic is belief in Real Presence. If you believe in Real Presence, you can call yourself Catholic. To clarify, there are Anglicans who believe in Real Presence and Anglicans how do not. In Ireland, we would distinguish between Anglicans in the following general sense: High Church and Low Church. I stress there this is a generalization as there are varying opinions within the Anglican Church. Low Church are more evangelical and influenced by Calvinism. High Church focus more on Sacramentality and they would have a belief in Real Presence. Roger Schultz was an Anglican who believed in Real Presence. There was a big hoo ha when he received Holy Communion from Pope Benedict at Jean Paul II funeral. However, the Church teaches that under certain circumstances, those who are not in communion with Rome but have a belief in Real Presence can receive Holy Communion under certain circumstances.

This is not accurate. What distinguishes all the Rites is language and culture. The Latin Rite uses Latin as the ecclesial and liturgical language, and follows customs that are from ancient Roman times. The same is true of the other Rites - different languages, liturgy, dress, culture. Yet they are all the same in doctrine.

All of the 22 other Rites are in communion with the successor of Peter, which means that they consider Rome to be the center of doctrinal unity. He is the visible sign of unity in th echruch, and the central teaching office of all the Rites.

They do not have different views on the role of the pope or papal authority. If they did, they would not be in communion with him.

What you describe here is true for our Eastern Orthodox brethren, who do have adminstrations separate from the successor of Peter, and do have different concepts of his role in the Church. It is these differences that still divide us from the EO. All of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches have overcome these and been able to be re-united with the Latin Rite.

Wasn’t really getting into this in my post. I was attempting to explain that the Roman Catholic Church is structured, organized and managed from Rome. There are other Catholic Churches who are in communion with Rome, but structure, organize and themselves and follow the Eastern Rite, which is what I meant about the Pope having a different role in some Catholic Churches. One such small group of Churches whose name escapes me at the minute exists in the Middle East . I think they appoint their own bishops but I stand to be corrected.

Did you mean to say that they accept that there is a unique role for the successor of Peter?

In short, as I really don’t have the space to go into all the details here. The ‘High’ Church yes. As many may know, the Church of England is in a bit of a mess. Henry VIII wanted the Pope out of way so he could divorce. However, the beliefs of the Anglican Church remained Catholic. There are Anglicans in England who want some form of re-uniufication with Rome, believing the Anglican Church has become too liberal and ecuemenical talks have been going on for some time to facilitate that. In Ireland, the Anglican Church is more ‘Low’ Church as it is considerably more influenced by Calvinism. However, I have spoken to Anglicans who find it difficult to accept Papal infallibility, but would agree that the Pope has a significant and unique role regarding leadership of the Church. There are ecumenical talks going on in Ireland to make the Pope more acceptable to Protestants. Personally I think there are Protestants here who would never accept the Pope, even as a spiritual leader, but I admire the optimism and efforts of those who do.

I agree, which kinda refutes what you said about the Eastern Rite Catholics above.

But there are also other things that make them not Catholic. Most of our separated brethren will claim the nicene creed.

Perhaps I’ve clarified this with what I have said concerning the Anglican Church. It is not Roman Catholic, but it can call itself Catholic for the reasons I have given. To illustrate, the Presbyterian Church is Reformed (Protestant) as they reject Sacramentalilty and have their own Creed. Before you say it, yes I know it is more complex than and yes you could split hairs and say unless you accept Papal infallibility your not Catholic never mind Roman Cathollic!

I’m teasing! :hug1:

 

[Esdra]

It is really sad. It took me many years to realize that they were there all along, and that it was my perceptions that prevented me from “seeing” them. It was the log in my own eye that was making it impossible to see what was right in front of me.

Well, I haven’t found any so far. (Okay, I haven’t been searching in the Catholic Church for 8 years now!)

I am not sure. Some people have such a hostility against the Catholic Church that they cannot even accept Christ from her.

I can. They have many truths. But those who are not correct, are simply just not correct…
I can find out what is correct and what not by the Reforamtors (especially Luther and Zwingli). They were guided by the Holy Spirit in my opinion to reform the Church. But the Church didn’t want to let itself reform… So the denominations arose.

It is a puzzle why you would embrace a belief if you know that it is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Well, not everything is right. The Catholic Church has much of the belief the Apostles had. - But there are also other thing! (see also above!)

One must ignore a great deal of Scripture and history to cling to such a belief. I wonder why it would be important to blind oneself in this way?

Wasn’t it in history also the community of believer? Or what was the Church among the Ancient Christians?!

If you got sucked into that drivel, then you have left the path of wisdom.

I didn’t. I know what I believe and I know that it is true.

There is nothing that humans can do to unite ourselves. Unity comes from adherance to the Truth, Jesus made this clear. Our humanistic efforts to tolerate and excuse departures from the Truth so that we can all “get along” are misguided and fruitless.

Well, of course they can. Isn’t there a Catholic saying like: “I don’t have arms, only your arms; I don’t have legs, only yours”, says Jesus. (and so on)?

Jesus founded a united and visible Church, and it remains so to this day because He promised to preserve it,an lead it into “all truth”. It is He who is our “only chance”, not mamby pamby ecumensim that compromises Truth.

There is no visible Church!

Dialog is good. The Catholic Church rejects no one - just false doctrine.

Oh yes, they do. I got to know that pretty hard. It’s great that you don’t and apparently most others here in CAF as well. It shows that you are more tolerant!

Not a bit. I love my separated brethren. If I did not, I would not be here! Loving them does not mean that I have to accept the heresies that have been promulgated. I am not at liberty to do so.

Good. You are tolerant. But only few Catholics are, sadly enough… (It’s getting especially hard and intolerant if you live in a Catholic dominated country like I do, believe me!)

There is no doubt about this. If all Catholics in America lived according to what they claimed to believe, this country would be heading in a very different direction.

The sad thing is that hardly noone here in Austria lives according to their faith! - sbout 80% are Catholics!

I studied the Old Catholics from the Utrecht succession.

And did you like their ideas? If I cameback to my original Catholic Faith I guess I would either go to the Old Catholics/Utrecht or to the Lutherans. Maybe I get a longing for liturgy later in life…? At the moment I don’t need it. I am young (24). - But who knows what happens in future?

If you cannot be Catholic because you feel a need to embrace theologies that are a departure from what the Aposltes believed and taught, then you are not ready for the privilege of being Catholic.

Well, I am not ready to became a Catholic (again). There are too many points I can’t agree on. And one has told me here in CAF that you have to accept the whole doctrine. I can’t. This is the reason why I am not Catholic anymore!/QUOTE]

 

[Esdra]

Yes, I came to the same false conclusion based upon the same false premises. It is amazing how easy it is to end up with the wrong outcome when you are starting with misinformation.

“What is truth?”, asked Pontius Pilate Jesus. And I tell you: Jesus is the truth! All the other things we are “arguing” here are about are more or less peanuts.

You will be in our prayers. I do hope you will continue to learn. Sometimes you don’t seem very open minded.

I only know what I believe. I do listen to you -and I learned really a lot here in CAF. BUT this doesn’t mean that I became a Catholic again because you convinced me, sort of.

Men departing from the teaching of the faith, and committing sins.

And you think those people were to be burnt or killed in another way?! Are you serious??

People have been departing from the faith and committing sin since the beginning of the Church! How do you explain ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts?

Did you know that these things all happened with the consent of the pope, the cardinals and the bishops?! Do you really think this was God’s will? A God whom we know today as loving, graceful and merciful??!!

No, Esdra. Men who have departed from the tenents of the faith to commit murder do not define what is true. Truth is not defined by those who depart from it. The Church has never taught that these actions are right. Plenty of people commit atrocities in the name of religion. Some soldiers commit atrocities when they are fighting for the United States, but it does not mean the country approves of such behavior. You are confusing the actions of sinful individuals with the values and teachings of the Church, and this is a logical error.

Well, actually I think, if the HS REALLY had guided and protected the Catholic Church then he would have been a really, really evil god, without love, mercy and grace!!

If you believe this then you really have a warped perspective of God,a nd the OT. God has ALWAYS guided His people. He has never left them, or forsaken them. The fact that certain people did not follow His guidance does not mean it was not present!

He didn’t. When they fell away from Him he lead thim into the arms of the Assyrians and Babylonians. Even the Psalmists often pray to God and beg Him to come back to them to guide them!

So, we are in agreement that the Catholic Church produced the Bible? How can you trust that it is accurate, since you believe that same Church had fallen into Paganism?

We are yes, sort of. I trust that some teachings of the CC is correct, so is the canon of the Bible (btw. Produced was it by the editors. - and there are evangelical Editors as well! - we can only talk about the canon. And yes, the CC established the canon of the Bible)

How do you know which parts of the Church teaching to accept, and which to reject?

I think I have already answered this one in the previous post…

How can you accept the Scripture, but not the Apostolic Authority by which it was formed?

I don’t know. I don’t believe in the Apostolic Authority. Jesus promised the HS to ALL of us, all who believe in Him. And this is what actually happened at Pentecost. All received the HS, not only the 12. (Even the gentiles, the Romans to whom Peter was called, received the HS!) Jesus is IN us and we are “all priests”.

Whew! You don’t know how relieved I am to hear you make this pronouncement.

I was getting really worried there for a while.

Thank God you are available to discern these things!

I think most of my protestant brothers and sisters think that the CC is right in some things, not only me. They HAVE obtained a lot from the CC. But not all, otherwise they would still be Catholic1

It is true that our separated brethren have retained a great many Catholic doctrines. It is the Catholicism that has been retained that is able to unite us still, in spite of so many heresies having crept in.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "
(Jn 3:16-18)

And ALL Protestants DO believe in Him, don’t they? So where is the problem? We are saved, no matter which denomination/Church we belong to. However, I would also insert the Nicene Creed as a criterion. You know there are also heresies that are not even accepted by us Protestants. I am not sure about them!

How could it be otherwise, since you were so poorly catechized? You seem to have had very little education at all in the Catholic faith. It is not difficult to be led astray when one is not well anchored.

I was not led astray! Jesus and His HS guided me. I know that He loves me and that He would never permit that I go astray!!

I think it is not by chance.

You should have read further!

No. The HS does not guide an individual into a direction opposite from what He has already revealed to His Church.

Of course He did!! Who else? Do you dare to say the Devil has led me and I followed him? Do you really think the Devil leads us to Christ? No, on the contrary! He, the devil who hates Jesus and god, leads to the sinful world. To drugs, prostitution, excessive partying and so. These are the ways of the devil!

 

[rinnie]

No there is only ONE Catholic Church.

In order for a Church to be Fully Catholic they must be in communion with Rome which preside in charity. For this church by reason of its pre-eminence the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere must necessarily be in accord.

From the incarnate Words descent to us all Christian Churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church this is here at Rome to be their basis and foundation.

Jesus said you are Peter and upon this ROCK I will build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail against her.

Jesus is still leading the Church in Rome led by Peter and leads all of the Catholic Churchs around the world.

In order to have the Church promised by God it must have the 4 marks.

One. The Church is ONE because of her source, THe word made flesh the prince of restoring the unity of all men to God by the Cross restoring the unity of all in ONE people, ONE body. The Church is ONE because of her soul THE HOLY SPRIIT.
THere is only ONE HOLY Spirit dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church.

The Church must be HOLY Because Christ himself is holy and gave himself up for her as his bride to sanctify her he joined himself body and soul to her and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

THe Church must be Catholic which means universal. In means keeping with the whole.
THis always reminds me of a tool. If you buy a certain tool and its universal it means it fits everything. Can do everything. That is what the CC is. It is one for all. All for ONE.

The Church became Catholic on the day of Pentecost. It is on Pentecost that the Church received its fullness by God and became united with her.

The Church must be Apostolic. Which means led by the Apostles.

If you have all of these marks on your Church you have the One True Church.

The reason the Catholic Church is one is because it is led by ONE HOLY SPIRIT and had ONE TEACHING.

God sent all of the Apostles out and told them Go and spread my news to the ends of the world. Every single Catholic CHurch in communion with ROme has the same exact teaching.

But just because ever Apostle has his own way to teach, and they have different disciplines for his Church people think that the Church’s teachings are different. This is not true. The Apostles have ONE teaching and all teach the same thing.

But because each Apostle were not together they had the right to run their Church the way they saw fit. And as long as they never changed the teachings of Christ they have and still have this right. They did not have constant communication the way they can today.

So one could do Baptism confirmation, and communion at the same time, some don’t. What is the big deal. That is a discipline of the Church. They never changed the meaning of each sacrament.

The Church must have 7 sacraments. If your church has all of this you are in the Church started by Christ and led by the Apostles.

I personally agree with your Dad that the First Visible Church was in Rome. But who cares. As long as they go by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which the Pope is over and are in communion with him what really is the big difference:shrug:

 

[rinnie]

Esdra my little buddy, you know the truth, you are starting to see the truth because the truth is in you. You have alot of pride, and I understand your pain, but no matter what mistakes humans have made rather they are Catholic, Jew, Protestatant etc. That still does not change the teachings of Christ.

You have got to honestly give up the pain, and offer forgiveness. Not for them my friend but for yourself. Trust me my friend I know. Its too heavy to carry.

I had to watch my baby brother at the age of 39 be put to death because his wife would not sit back and let God give him a chance with kemo. He had a right to die they said, If you have a terminal illness you have the right to end your suffering instead of fighting it. I still hear him screaming I know what you are doing to me. Get me out of here. I could not stop it, and it haunted me for almost 7 years now. But I had to quit blaming myself for not being able to stop it. And I had to offer forgiveness to his wife in my heart or my bitterness and hate would have consumed me worse then any cancer ever could.

So I gave it up to God and said Jesus I trust you, and I don’t blame God or the Church I go to God and the Church to heal me.

I can not say that I can ever be her friend, or want anything to do with her, but I learned that I can pray for her, its the best I can do right now. And I have finally found peace. I want that peace for you.

 

[minkymurph]

Well, I am not ready to became a Catholic (again). There are too many points I can’t agree on. And one has told me here in CAF that you have to accept the whole doctrine. I can’t. This is the reason why I am not Catholic anymore!

/QUOTE]

Everyone goes through stages in faith development. You are at a questioning stage. You may stay at this stage of faith development throughout your life. Many people do. It is said to be the most difficult stage of faith development, but a most necessary one and people who push through it come out the other side a different person and very at home with their faith.

If you are looking for a religion were you agree with everything, I would say your search will be in vain. I would also say not questioning anything is not a good thing. You will also find the same flaws among people in all religions.

I’ll end with a fable:

Once upon a time, a man went in search of the perfect religion. He went to all his neighbours asking ‘have you got the perfect religion?’ He travelled around the country asking the same question and each time the answer was the same, ‘No.’ Eventually, he came to a a house in a remote part of the world. He knocked on the door and when a man answered, he asked the question 'have you got the perfect religion?

The man replied ‘Yes! But it won’t be if you join!’

 

[minkymurph]

For anyone interested, here is link to an ariticle concerning Real Presence in the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

It confirms Luther did not reject Real Presence. However, he restricted it to the moment of reception.

The reason I mention this is coming back to being in communion with Rome, there are some who are in a positive sense, more in communion with Rome than others and in a negative sense, less not in communion than others if you know what I mean.

 

[Javl]

Getting back to the question asked by the OP: There is only One Catholic Church. This includes both western and eastern rites that are in communion with Rome ( and each other ). The churches that are not in communion with Rome, such as the Polish National Catholic Church, The Old Catholic Church, The Liberal Catholic Church, etc., are NOT Catholic even though they use the title “Catholic” in their title. “Catholic” means universal and these churches are not universal since they are limited in size, membership and area.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Esdra]

Getting back to the question asked by the OP: There is only One Catholic Church. This includes both western and eastern rites that are in communion with Rome ( and each other ). The churches that are not in communion with Rome, such as the Polish National Catholic Church, The Old Catholic Church, The Liberal Catholic Church, etc., are NOT Catholic even though they use the title “Catholic” in their title. “Catholic” means universal and these churches are not universal since they are limited in size, membership and area.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

As far as I have read except of the LCC all other Churches are indeed Catholic. They even have the apostolic succession, like the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Churches!

Does anyone know more about the LCC?
I have read this is a sect which only has the word Catholic in its name. Although they have the 7 sacraments, they don’t consider sacraments of other Churches not as valid.

 

[Esdra]

No there is only ONE Catholic Church.

In order for a Church to be Fully Catholic they must be in communion with Rome which preside in charity. For this church by reason of its pre-eminence the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere must necessarily be in accord.

From the incarnate Words descent to us all Christian Churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church this is here at Rome to be their basis and foundation.

Jesus said you are Peter and upon this ROCK I will build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail against her.

Well, the protestant interpretation of this verse is different: “Jesus was so happy that at least Paul understood by the Holy Ghost that He is the Son of God and the Messiah that He said that He would build upon His believe = Rock build up His Church which is the Community of all Believers in Christ Jesus.”

Jesus is still leading the Church in Rome led by Peter and leads all of the Catholic Churchs around the world.

I am not too sure about that. Sometimes the HS for sure did. But not always (please also read my post to guanophore above on this topic!)

In order to have the Church promised by God it must have the 4 marks.

One. The Church is ONE because of her source, THe word made flesh the prince of restoring the unity of all men to God by the Cross restoring the unity of all in ONE people, ONE body. The Church is ONE because of her soul THE HOLY SPRIIT.
THere is only ONE HOLY Spirit dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church.

The Church must be HOLY Because Christ himself is holy and gave himself up for her as his bride to sanctify her he joined himself body and soul to her and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

THe Church must be Catholic which means universal. In means keeping with the whole.
THis always reminds me of a tool. If you buy a certain tool and its universal it means it fits everything. Can do everything. That is what the CC is. It is one for all. All for ONE.

The Church became Catholic on the day of Pentecost. It is on Pentecost that the Church received its fullness by God and became united with her.

The Church must be Apostolic. Which means led by the Apostles.

Mhm, that’s funny all characteristics you have written above perfectly fit with my Anabaptist community as well except the thing with the apostolic succession (at least as far as I know). Well, and the term Catholic we would interpret differntly: catholic = universal = open for all - and we ARE open for all. Everybody is invited to come.

If you have all of these marks on your Church you have the One True Church.

So I am part of the “True Church” then - cool. Maybe I should get Anglican or an Old Catholic or Orthodox because for these ALL points fit!

The reason the Catholic Church is one is because it is led by ONE HOLY SPIRIT and had ONE TEACHING.

That’s right. There is one Catholic Church (the Community of Believers). There is ONE HOLY SPIRIT working in it and there is ONE TEACHING (the Holy Bible).

God sent all of the Apostles out and told them Go and spread my news to the ends of the world. Every single Catholic CHurch in communion with ROme has the same exact teaching.

But just because ever Apostle has his own way to teach, and they have different disciplines for his Church people think that the Church’s teachings are different. This is not true. The Apostles have ONE teaching and all teach the same thing.

The Bible, of course. What else? (Except they were carried away and started heresies like Gnosticsm etc!

But because each Apostle were not together they had the right to run their Church the way they saw fit. And as long as they never changed the teachings of Christ they have and still have this right. They did not have constant communication the way they can today.

So one could do Baptism confirmation, and communion at the same time, some don’t. What is the big deal. That is a discipline of the Church. They never changed the meaning of each sacrament.

The Church must have 7 sacraments. If your church has all of this you are in the Church started by Christ and led by the Apostles.

OOOOps, okay I am not in the True Church then according to you (two points missing…). I see, I have to become either Anglican or Old Catholic/Utrecht or PNCC or an Orthodox. Then I would be in the True Church. See, there is more than one “Catholic Church” - I am right. Thank you, rinnie!

I personally agree with your Dad that the First Visible Church was in Rome. But who cares? As long as they go by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which the Pope is over and are in communion with him what really is the big difference:shrug:

Okay, another part of my OP answered. Easter Catholicsm is in full communion with Rome so this means they are part of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church (using your definition of Catholic in this case. )

God bless you,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Esdra my little buddy, you know the truth, you are starting to see the truth because the truth is in you.

I know that the Truth is in me. The HS has always led me and will always lead me. Closer to Christ, with every step closer to Christ. AMEN. HALLELUJA!
What do you mean I start seeing the truth? Just because I start to understand Catholicsm, this doesn’t mean I am becoming a Catholic (again) . Before this will happen I would go either to the Old Catholics or to the Lutherans or the United Methodist Church (ooops then again I don’t have the truth anymore. Only two Sacraments! ) (There are no Anglicans in Central Europe, otherwise I would consider them also! )

You have alot of pride, and I understand your pain, but no matter what mistakes humans have made rather they are Catholic, Jew, Protestatant etc. That still does not change the teachings of Christ.

Of course it doesn’t. I know that, otherwise I wouldn’t have read the Bible, although I had already left (unofficially) the Church already.

You have got to honestly give up the pain, and offer forgiveness. Not for them my friend but for yourself. Trust me my friend I know. Its too heavy to carry.

Why should I forgive myself? I mean in this context? I don’t really get it…

I had to watch my baby brother at the age of 39 be put to death because his wife would not sit back and let God give him a chance with kemo. He had a right to die they said, If you have a terminal illness you have the right to end your suffering instead of fighting it. I still hear him screaming I know what you are doing to me. Get me out of here. I could not stop it, and it haunted me for almost 7 years now. But I had to quit blaming myself for not being able to stop it. And I had to offer forgiveness to his wife in my heart or my bitterness and hate would have consumed me worse then any cancer ever could.

That’s really a sad story. I am glad you managed through this time with help of Christ. He is there when we need him most. He even carries us through this way. You know the parable of the man and god walking in the man’s dream in the sand on the beach?

‘One day God gave a man a dream:
The man dreamed that he walked with Him on the beach. Above him there was a short film with an episode of the man’s life. And he saw footsteps, his own and God’s.
Finally they came to a part where the man really had to suffer most and see there - there was only one footprint. The man sighed and said to God: “Look Lord, this is the time of my life where I had to suffer most and you were not there!”. God smiled at him warmheartedly and said: “No, I was there. I even carried you on my shoulders through this time”.’

So I gave it up to God and said Jesus I trust you, and I don’t blame God or the Church I go to God and the Church to heal me.

This is what we are supposed to do. We are children of the Most High. He loves us like a father loves his children! He wants us that we bring everything that is too hard for us to manage to Him. And He will give our heart peace as Jesus said in Mt 11:29: “Become my servants and learn from me. I am gentle and free of pride. **You will find rest for your souls. **”

I can not say that I can ever be her friend, or want anything to do with her, but I learned that I can pray for her, its the best I can do right now. And I have finally found peace. I want that peace for you.

I have peace. I have Jesus, my Saviour. I gave Him my life and my heart. He is always with me to the very end. As He had primsed us in Mt 28:20b :“And you can be sure that I am always with you, to the very end.”

 

[minkymurph]

Getting back to the question asked by the OP: There is only One Catholic Church. This includes both western and eastern rites that are in communion with Rome ( and each other ). The churches that are not in communion with Rome, such as the Polish National Catholic Church, The Old Catholic Church, The Liberal Catholic Church, etc., are NOT Catholic even though they use the title “Catholic” in their title. “Catholic” means universal and these churches are not universal since they are limited in size, membership and area.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I would agree with this. Churches that limit size and membership cannot be considered universal and therefore not Catholic irrespective of what they choose to call themselves.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons call themselves Christians and they believe they are. They would say it is everyone else who is not a true Christian.

I’ve never heard of any of the above mentioned Churches. Anyone want to enlighten me?

I considered the Anglican Church but chose Catholic. Major factors, among other things, were; the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Marian theology and the Purgatorial state. On these, I believe what the Catholic Church says is true.

I have to say this is one of the best threads I’ve ever posted on. Informative, respectful, and intelligent fruitful debate.

 

[Esdra]

I would agree with this. Churches that limit size and membership cannot be considered universal and therefore not Catholic irrespective of what they choose to call themselves.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons call themselves Christians and they believe they are. They would say it is everyone else who is not a true Christian.

Actually Mormons normally call themselves Saints, as you can find this term in (normally) old Editions of the New Testament.
For me neither JW nor Mormons are Christians, however. They are sects!

I’ve never heard of any of the above mentioned Churches. Anyone want to enlighten me?

The Old Catholic Church/Utrecht and the PNCC went away from the RCC after Vaticanum I. They had problems with the infillability of the pope among others. According to their teaching they are, in my opinion, very similar to the Anglican Church. The Old Catholic Church/Utrecht is not to be found in the US. This Church only exits in Austria, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands. It’s a fairly small Church, but I find it pleasant. If I ever consider evangelicalism to be wrong, I will either go there or to the Lutheran or the Methodist Church. The Old Catholic Church/Utrecht is in full communion with the Anglican Church like the whole Utrecht-allience.
There are also other Churches in the Utrecht-allience like the Philippine Catholic Church and others. If you are interested read the wikipedia article on Old Catholic Church/Utrecht.
Since the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht is practicing women ordination (2007) the PNCC left the Utrecht-allience and is now a seperate Catholic Church. The PNCC is more Catholic in their approach but also rejects the pope. The PNCC and the EOC have good relationships just as the Utrecht-allience had before the ordination of women.

The LCC is a sect as far as I know. I only found it by chance in the internet. They have the 7 sacraments forinstance but see themselves as the one, true Church and so reject all sacraments (even baptism!) from the other Churches! It emerges from a Methodist preacher if I remember correctly.

I considered the Anglican Church but chose Catholic. Major factors, among other things, were; the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Marian theology and the Purgatorial state. On these, I believe what the Catholic Church says is true.

I have to say this is one of the best threads I’ve ever posted on. Informative, respectful, and intelligent fruitful debate.

Thank you.