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

[benedictus2]

Do I believe that? Uhm, probably I again used false vocabulary that you come to this conclusion… Principially the Catholic Churches ARE open to all. But because they don’t have open Eucharist they are in some ways also not! You have to become a member and accept all their teachings (at least in theory). By the way the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht HAS open Eucharist. You can do anything there without joining (although it is recommended). - Oh, I really wish the RCC would be more like the Old Catholic Church…

Well of course. She can do so because Christ established only one Church, the Catholic Church.

From Pentecost to now, it is the same Catholic Church that Christ founded, that is why three weeks ago we celebrated our birthday on the feast of Pentecost.
Basically what you want is to join a church on your own terms and dictate the rules by which that Church shall abide. That, is the height of pride.
. Sorry but that is not how Christ meant His Church to be. You become part of His Church on His terms. That is why He specifically chose apostles.

And the Catholic Church is the Old, the Current, the New and the Upcoming Church because the Catholic Church is in the Kairos - in the eternal now. The Church exists within the confines of time and space (the Church Militant – us here on earth, saints in the making) and also outside of the space time-continuum (the Church Triumphant -the Saint, and Church suffering – the souls in purgatory). That is the communion of saints.
That is why in the creed we profess belief in the the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is the Communion of Saints.

 

[guanophore]

I can give you also some Catholic examples of “forcing” people to become Christian: What about the Native Americans of North and South America? Or the Ancient Germans (although they knew how to defend their pagan faith - they even killed some missionars.)

These are not “Catholic examples”. They are examples of sinful people claiming to be Catholic committing atrocities in the name of religion. Claiming that this is Catholic does not make it so. It is like American soldiers committing atrocities around the globe, smearing the reputation of America by their misdeeds. Their actions are wrong, and do not represent what America believes. Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

Do you really think that Christianity didn’t start in Jerusalem? It says in the Bible doesn’t it? But the Roman Catholic Church started in Rome later on. And first of all - the first Christians were not Catholic in our modern sence! Again a point my dad and I agree on!

The Catholic Church, as Hesychios carefully explained, is not “Roman”. No disrespect to your pops, but the first Christians were Catholic. I am not sure what you mean by “modern sense”. If you are referring to all the misinformation you have posted here about Catholicism, you are right. The first Christians would not recognize what you believe to be Catholic. That is because your concept of Catholicism is not accurate. It exists in an imaginal plane, and does not correspond to the facts.

I was not misled. I found out for myself. I have always been interested in History and Religion and I have been studying for long know (8 years!). If I come to the same conclusion than some Reformators, doesn’t that proove that they are right?

No, Esdra. You have been misled. You have apparently studied history in isolation from the Truth that God has revealed to the Church. It is easy to end up with false conclusions this way.

No, if you come to the same conclusions as the Reformers, it only means that you have embraced the same heresies, probably reached false conclusions based upon false premises.

Even my dad, whom I talk to quite often about that topic, agrees with me on a great extent!!

With all due respect to your dad, if he has reached these conclusions, then he too has studied history apart from what God has revealed to the Church. When you try to apprehend Truth in a state of separation from revealed Truth, you will always end up missing the mark.

I thought the Word of God was the Holy Bible... And as far as I got to know the CC (here), I can see some points which are not in the Holy Bible!

The Truth revealed by God is not confined to the Holy Scriptures. Furthremore, some of your conclusions (such as “God did not found a visible Church” are directly contradictory to the Scriptutres. In such a case, don’t you think it is likely that the Scriptures are correct?

Of course He does. He promised us to lead us into the fullness of truth and this refers to ALL believers in Christ ("the visible Church, Jesus has founded", if you want so), not only the Apostles!

The promise was made to the CHURCH, not “all believers in Christ”. Individuals can only benefit from this promise to the extent that they remain in communion with the successors of the Apostles. Since you believe they don’t exist, it is fairly certain that you are not covered by the promise.

Well, I think this is a German/English problem… Never mind. As long as we know what we are referring to with this term! I will simply use denominations and Churches in future when I wirte here.

No, I don’t think it is. I think you believe that Catholicism is a denomination like all the others, and this is not the case. CAtholicism is the Church founded by Christ written about in the New Testament. All the denominations are founded by men who came along later and wanted to reject parts of the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

WHAT? I reject the scriptures? You know that I am emergant Anabaptist, don't you? And, as you also were an Anabaptist, you know that the Holy Bible is inspired and inerrant, don't you?

Yes. I must admit, I am very puzzled why you reject the scriptures on this point.

I just said that Jesus didn't write down anything. But does this mean what the Apostles and evangelists wrote down about hims is wrong or so?

What you said was that the Apostles did not get it all right. Now, perhaps that was a language problem?

Okay, I think I can agree on this point. They were Catholic which means universal. But this doesn’t necessarily to do with the present Catholic Church.

It has everything to do with the present Catholic Church. The doctrines of the faith have not changed, from that day, to this.

Of course he found a “visible Church” - the community of all believers who form the Body of Christ!!

Ok, this is progress forward from what you said before that he did not found a visible Church. The next steps is, how do we tell what the visible church is? Rinnie wrote it all out for you. I read it last night. she did a great job - all except for that erroneous part that she stubbornly clings to that the Catholic faith started in Rome.

I don’t have prejudices. I know what I am believing and that it’s true.

We all have prejudices, Esdra. If we don’t recognize them, then we are doomed to be trapped within them.

I am sure you are believing what you thnk is true. I commend your strong desire to know what is true, and embrace it.

You don’t realize right now that you have embraced some things that are not, in fact, true.

Oh I hate this question… I have been asked that quite often here in CAF. I am sorry I can’t answer it… - Even if I say through the Holy Bible, there will again come another question…

You are right to hate this question. We are notiicing that the foundation you are using to determine truth is unstable.

You are also right that if you claim to use the Holy Bible as a standard for measuring the Truth, more questions will come. The extent to which you deny what is says, the Apostolic succession, for example, you will have to give an account for that.

Yes it did. But only because of the Reformators and only in Vaticanum I and II.

The Church makes reforms whenever heresies abound. Reforms were needed because people had departed from the faith. Besides, the major reforms made by the Church in response to the Reformers were made at Trent, not Vatican.

And from many points of Vaticanum II they went away again. At least my dad told me so - this is also the reason why he doesn’t like the Catholic Church too much.

It is ok for your dad not to like the CC. It is also ok that he misundertands what happened. Just so long as you know that you are basing your conclusions on prejudice and ignorance.

He really loved the teachings of Vaticanum II and is really interested in the unifying of the Churches (ONE Christianity). Some things I write here I know from him. I once told Him that he is sometime quite reformatoric in his approach for being a Catholic Theologian - and he says that he knows about that. He even seems proud to be so.

I am glad you are real proud of your dad,a nd that you can talk to him about things that are important to you. As much as you respect him, though, that does not mean he is right on all these points.

Actually what Zwingli and Luther taught is not that far away from the teaching of the RCC!

Yes, it is. The Catholic Church is forbidden to embrace the heresies these men promulgated. For us, they constittute “a different gospel” than the one that was delivered by the Apostles. If we were to embrace it, we would be accursed!

What the apostles taught is correct to 100% (and is to be found in the New Testament. Which is inspired an inerrant as we all know!)!

Ok, it is good that we can agree on this. I was very worried when you said that they got some of it wrong.

Not all of what they taught is in the NT.

But what their “succeders” taught not always. This is one of the reason why I can’t be Catholic.

The successors of the apostles are obligated to teach what was handed on to them by the Apostles.

I am glad that the reasons you cannot be Catholic are only those that exist in your imagination. Since what keeps you from being Catholic are only misinformed fantasies, then when these are cleared up the road should be a straight shot!

 

[Esdra]

I find that statement interesting. A protestant claiming that other protestannts from a different country who happen to be in the same denomination do not have all of the truth that the same denomination in Europe possses.

Sorry, that’s my mistake.

1. I meant the Catholics, not the protestants who don’t have the full truth.

but

1. you are right that I also believe that noone has the “full truth” because we are not able to understand it. We are only finite (hope this is the opposite of infinite) humans! Only god can understand the “full truth” - because he is infinite.
   Oh yeah, I am good philospher! proudofmyself

esdra

 

[guanophore]

I answered parts of this statement already. We are in agreement that the first Christians were Catholic - but not in our modern meaning of it.

Your perception of modern Catholicism is very distorted and warped. The Apostles would not recognize the picture of the Catholic faith you have painted

The apostles were sort of missionars to spread the Gospel - and the one church built by Jesus is the community of all believers.

The community of believers are part of the Church, but by themselves, this is a distorted notion of “church”.

This is the “stubborness” my dad dislikes the CC for. Most protestant Chuches are not heresies. It’s just a a bit other glance on things. For me i.e. Lutherans isn’t a heresy at all! Again I like to point out to the Big Tent, 'though.

I am sorry that your beloved pops has fallen into the modern error of relativism

The Apostles, fathers, and martyrs of the faith were all put to death for their stubborn refusal to abandon the faith. Your father’s disapproval of their fortitude does not diminish the value of it.

Protestantism is based upon heresies. You can minimze this by calling it " a different point of view" but what it constitutes a different gospel. Of course there are many truths found in these eccelsial communties, including the Lutheran. That does not excuse the heresies thought.

I have just this feeling. Especially in countries where they are the majority. They are considered as sect and people are afraid of sects and the whole village will talk about you (a political village/town is normally a parish in those countries!)

I hope you can figure out that “I just have this feeling” does not equate to eternal Truth. In this case, most certainly not. The Catholic Church rejects no one, and your personal feelings of rejection do not change the facts. People’s opinions and feelings do not determine what is true.

They are no heresies. And I also haven’t accepted them -

There are many heresies Esdra, and it appears that you have embraced a number of them.

I found out for myself! And I haven’t been misled. You treat me as if I were a Anabaptist minister. I am not,

I am sure that you have studied, and come to your conclusions based upon your studies, and you believe you have embraced the Truth. You ahve been misled, and you have approached your studies from a false foundation, resulting in false conclusions.

How would I treat an Anabaptist minister?

I am only since Summer 2009 a reborn Christian. Most of the things however, I write here, I knew even before I knew that one has to be reborn and that something like Anabaptists exist!

Indeed, heretical sects have been alive since the days the NT was written. They will be with us until the Lord comes for us.

Well, my problem is that I haven’t seen anyone in real life who didn’t “leave”. Only here in CAF. Especially KathleenG and Cinnette and benedictus2 (to name a view) are very special people. I like them. I guess if I had gotten to know such people before I think I woud have never left the Church…

Well, this is good to know too!

Perhaps you have encountered some Catholics that are not “pharisees” in your mind.

On the other hand, I can’t be in a Church where so many people act the exact opposite way the Church teaches. (Remember 80% of all Austrians are at least on the paper Catholic!!)

It is wrong to allow your relationship with the Truth to be founded upon those who have departed from it.

Did you know that the Russian Orthodox Church calls itself “prawoslawnaja tserkow” = which means the church with the true teaching?

Yes. Have you ever been to Divine Liturgy?

How can they call themselves like that, since they reject the pope? Even the Catholic Church doesn’t have the true teaching according to them?!

The schism with the Orthodox was precipitated by the same ignorance, prejudice,a nd misinformation that I read in your posts. Realizing the mistakes, both sides have rescinded the excommunications. We are in the process of healing this horrible split.

Do you consider them as a heresy?

No. They did not change the doctrine like the Reformers. They got upset because the clergy were acting arrogant.

Not that you think I consider becoming Orthodox. Definitely not, especially since all Orthodox churches here in Austria use their national language and I think my Russian would be too poor for that! No, I would go the the Old Catholic/Utrecht Church, the Lutheran Church or the Methodist Church, if I were fed up with the Evangelicals. (Who knows maybe this happens once upon a time?)

If you continue your pursuit of Truth, I can guarantee you will get fed up with Evangelicalism. Hopefully the sooner the better.

I won’t. You can pray for me, but please NOT that I return to the Catholic Church. I won’t. (see also above!)

Yeah, Jonah said he would not go to Ninevah either.

I know - I never was Catholic and I never will be. Although I got to know my former faith better now in this forum. Nevertheless this doesn’t mean that it’s true!

You are right to say that Truth is not based upon what you know.

What you all seem to expect…

Of course! Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH, and there is only ONE FAITH, and ONE BAPTISM. We want everyone to return to that which Jesus brought into being.

 

[guanophore]

OF course he wasn’t referring to peanuts but to His word now standing in the Holy Bible. This is what the EOC the Catholic Churches (although together with ST and the Catechism) as well as most protestant churches do - teaching it.

The Truth of Jesus’ Word is not now, nor has ever been, confined to the Scriptures. What our separated brethren do is teach what they interpret, which is not necessarily what the Apostles believed and taught.

I AM willing to learn - but this doesn't mean that I have to accept all of the Catholic doctrines, doesn't it? Why do you always expect that? (Refer to prayer my previous post!)

I expect that you will accept what we are telling you, rather than clinging to the falsehoods you brought here. No, we don’t expect you to embrace the Catholic faith. We hope and pray that you will, but at the least, do what was recommended to you a few posts back and find out what we really believe, rather than rejecting the faith based upon your misconceptions.

I know. See? - this is another reason why I can’t become Catholic!

Then you are making your decision based upon the wrongdoing of other people. Is this a reason to make a decision? Will you avoid something that is true because others also rejected the Truth? This is like saying that Jesus did not teach the Truth because Judas abandoned Him!

I have people in my Anabaptist denomination that don’t depart from faith.

MOst of the people in Protestant communities do not even know they have embraced heresies. They were given untruth from the beginning. In fact, they are so far from the Apostolic faith that they think Catholics “added” to it!

It has the truth in it. So why should I go to the Catholic Church which is (sadly enough) full of people departing from their faith. I already wrote to you - the Catholic Church is too big to administer.

I think you are not ready for the privilege of being Catholic. I hope you will get there, though.

Was it your intention to administer the Catholic Church? You are right. It is too big of a job for you.

However, Jesus put the Apostles in charge of administering the Church, and they passed this responsibility on to their successors. Since you are outside the Apostolic Successin, you don’t need to worry yourself about administering something that is too big for you.

I don’t know about the situation in the US, but here in (Central) Europe only very few people haven’t departed from their faith (and they are called bigots, fundamentalists and fanatics by the other “Catholics”! And are loved at.)

I am sorry about any religious bigotry, no matter which side it comes from. However, people being bigoted also does not change the Truth. What is right is not defined by people who do wrong.

For me the burning of witches, the crusades and the persecution (ending often with death) of Reformator/Heretics is a GREAT error. For you not?

It is good that we agree on what is error in these cases. Where we difffer, apparently, is that you are willing to abandon the Truth because certain other persons fail to adhere to it. You point the finger at their wrongdoing, and say" he did wrong, therefore, I cannot follow what is right". That seems to be a failure of logic to me.

Well, in His mercy he turned again to it through the righteous people.

Right. God worked through the holy people in the Catholic Church to bring about reform. These are the Reformation saints, and the work of the Council of Trent.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, see, I am open to see the truths in the Catholic Church. I don’t condem it…

I hope and pray this is the case. You have demonstrated a lot of closed mindedness and condemnation so far. Just above, you condemn the Church for the sinful actions of men acting in the name of Catholicism.

No I wasn't led astray. This is the truth according to the Holy Bible, the infaillable word of God.

I am sure it seems that way to you. You seem very sincere about wanting to embrace the Truth,a nd you clearly are convinced that the ideas you have embraced are from God. Just keep in mind that Saul of Tarsus felt the same way you do about the Catholic faith (and worse) and that he believed with all his heart and zeal that he was not led astray.

OF course, what did you think? I made it up? Well, in a way I did - but through god’s leading via the HS I came to the same conclusion.

Actually it does seem like you have made up a lot of stuff. But I agree, none of the whacky perceptions you have are “new”. They have been embraced by hundreds of thousands before you!

The fact that two people both end up on a dead end road reading their maps does not make the maps correct.

Well, I think it would have been better to write that I don’t believe in the Apostolic Succession… Some of these succedors did go wrong I am sure… As I already have admitted that the Apostles were right in their teachings.

Ok, because that is another matter.

Of course some of the successors have gone wrong! However, people going astray does not negate the Truth.

Well, I don’t seperate from the Apostles but from their successors.

And on what grounds do you do this, since the Apostles forbid it?

I, btw, also didn’t - otherwise I would have to reject the Holy Bible and become and Agnostic or Atheist!

To the extent you have separated youreself from the successors of the Apsotles, you have separated yourself from the faith of the Apostles.

As far as I know this is the protestant notion of salvation…

For many of them, yes. Many Protestants have a deficient understanding of salvation. Anabaptists among them. Their ideas are a significant departure from what the Apostels believed and taught.

Well, with Heresies I meant denominations, Chuches. So the Mormon Churches are heresies in our eyes as well as the JWs as well as Christian Science and similar ones.

Yes, I understand. the further the groups get from the succession, the more bizarre the theology.

I AM in the Holy, Catholic (universal), apostolic (bible-believing and so also believing the apostles), visible Church (of all believers)!

If you have been validly baptized, yes, though you are improperly joined, having unwittingly embraced heresies.

Because in same ways this church you mentioned went wrong… That’s the reason why he does such things! Note, not the Apostles went wrong, but some of their successors!

The Apostles did go wrong, they all abandoned Christ at His final hour. Peter was thick headed, and Jesus had to get drastic to show him that Gentiles were to be added to the Church. Individuals make mistakes. The Church cannot err.

I AM in the apostolic faith and in the Body of Christ which consists of the community of believers = the visible Church Jesus had established on earth.

The Church founded by Christ consists of much nmore than the visible members of her on earth.

 

[guanophore]

Okay, I must admit this is what our pastor told me! One of the few things I originally got from the Anabaptist Church.

Well, don’t believe everything you hear!

Principially the Catholic Churches ARE open to all. But because they don’t have open Eucharist they are in some ways also not! You have to become a member and accept all their teachings (at least in theory).

Those who receive the Body and Blood without discernment place themselves in a spiritually dangerous position. the Church has a duty to protect the flock. Also, the Eucharist is the symbol of unity. It would be disingenuous to open it to those who have embraced heresies. It would also be disingenuous for those who have embraced heresies to pretend to be in communion with Catholics!

By the way the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht HAS open Eucharist. You can do anything there without joining (although it is recommended).

Yes, this is one reason they are considered a heretical sect.

• Oh, I really wish the RCC would be more like the Old Catholic Church…

Why would you wish those who have adhered to the Apostles’ teaching would fall into error and abandon the faith that was passed down to them? This is a strange thing for someone to wish for.

Well, I simply don’t believe in it… So many errant people were successors of the Apostles. And this is the reason why the Catholic Church is quite far away from the Ancient, apostolic, teaching.

You are certainly free not to believe. In fact EVERYONE, including the apostles were “errant people”. It is the nature of humanity to err. This is why we need the gift of infallibility.

Although there are many modern day people calling themselves "Catholic’ that are far from the Teachings, the Church herself is not. Unless and until you can recognize that the Church is more than the “errant people” who are part of her, you will never understand this.

Btw, I only got to know this term here in CAF. I have never heared about it before…

You mean you never heard of Apostolic Teaching? Apostolic succession?

But it’s nevertheless true! ST =Tthe New Testament. So the Holy Bible is the ONE TEACHING of Christianity

No, Esdra, it is not true. This is misinformation that you have embraced. You have been misled.

Yeah, I know. I think I have already written about that. But better one point lacking than two or three! Btw rinnie had forgotten to write about the papcy as criterion to the One, True Church!

The office of the Papacy did not develop for a long time. It does not contradict of change the four marks of the True Church. The papacy is the visible symbol of unity

There is unity in the Church founded by Christ.

Correct, which is the community of all believers!

I am talking about doctrinal unity, Esdra. I think if you are honest with yourself, you will realize there is no unity of doctrine in the “community of all believers”.

I am a Protestant I don’t think they are going to hell. I think also my Anabaptists brethern think so (it seems that evangelicalism is very different than it is in the US!). They have part of the truth, but no the full. But since our God is a merciful God he definitely won’t throw them into Hell, for the sake of His son Christ Jesus in whom ALL Christians believe in.

People are not saved from hell simply because they dont’ believe they are going there. Yes, our God is merciful, and will judge each one in the light of what has been revealed to them.

Confer:

"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)

In Christ,
Esdra

God love us while we were still in our sins, and He will continue loving us even as we choose to waltz through the gates of hell. It would be an error to confuse His love for us with eternal salvation.

Sorry, that’s my mistake.

1. I meant the Catholics, not the protestants who don’t have the full truth.

Yet you have also admitted that you make this assessment on the basis of heresies that you have embraced.

1. you are right that I also believe that noone has the “full truth” because we are not able to understand it.

This is a nonsequitor Esdra. Truth is revealed to us by God. we don’t have to understand it to embrace it. I don’t think I will ever understand the incarnation, the eucharist, the hypostatic union and a whole host of other things. Hoewver, I embrace these truths because they were revealed by God.

We are only finite (hope this is the opposite of infinite) humans! Only god can understand the “full truth” - because he is infinite.
Oh yeah, I am good philospher! proudofmyself

I am glad you are trying to reason this out, but our faith is not based upon reason. It is good when faith is seeking understanding, but understanding is not required.

Esdra:

 

[benedictus2]

Yeah, Jonah said he would not go to Ninevah either.

Perhaps it is a good thing to be swallowed by the whale. Fr Barron refered to this as being boxed in by the will of God.

I will pray for Esdra to be boxed in by the will of God.

Niniveh here he comes :takeoff:

 

[minkymurph]

I am glad you are trying to reason this out, but our faith is not based upon reason. It is good when faith is seeking understanding, but understanding is not required.

Sorry, but got to disagree here. Apologies if I take your words out of context, but faith is based on reason. However, it is not based on reason alone. By it’s nature it cannot be. Thomas Aquinas writes extensively on the relationship between faith and reason. I would also say understanding is required as faith in the absence of understanding is blind belief.

Perhaps that’s not what you meant.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, but got to disagree here. Apologies if I take your words out of context, but faith is based on reason. However, it is not based on reason alone. By it’s nature it cannot be. Thomas Aquinas writes extensively on the relationship between faith and reason. I would also say understanding is required as faith in the absence of understanding is blind belief.

Perhaps that’s not what you meant.

I agree with you, of course. I am just saying that it is possible to be a faithful disciple even if one does not understand everything. I am sure the Apostles were as mystified as everyone else in Jn. 6. But, in spite of their inability to grasp the meaning of His word (until the last supper), they knew there was no where else to go for the Words of Life.

Jesus also said that the Kingdom of God is of such as little children, so something is to be said for the simple minded or even uneducated faith. I agree that our faith should always be seeking understanding, but understanding is not required. One can obey, even if one does not “get it”. For example, one may not understand why abortion or birth control is considered a mortal sin, and still obey.

The position that one will not accept or obey because one does not understand is not valid. I would say that faith is not apart from reason, but is based on the Revelation of God of Himself to us, rather than our abiity to figure it out…

Think of all the times in Scripture where it says “his disciples did not understand why He did this”. That is what I am talking about.

 

[rinnie]

I believe as God taught us that there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Jesus gave these keys to the kingdom to St Peter to hold and pass on to keep with all truth. This true Church is the Roman Catholic CHurch and the keys to the kingdom are still held at this Church by the Pope.

Many people disagree that the First Church was the Roman Catholic Church. But history proves that the first Church was indeed the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Cathoicism has been in general use since the reformation to identify the faith and practice of Christians in communion with the Pope.

Romish Catholic or Roman Catholic was introduced by protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic.

Roman Catholic has been called also the Popish, Romanist, Papsts or Recusants. There were many name but Roman Catholic is what became the common name.

The first Church was started at Pentecost and Peter was there so I can see no reason why the Catholic Church could be denied to be the first Church.

All of the Catholic Church’s that are in communion with the Church of Rome are all indeed part of the Roman Catholic Church.

So there is only One Catholic Church but because of the reformation we became labled the Roman Catholic Church because of the pope and since Christ conferred the primacy on Peter.

The dogmas of papal primacy and infallibility were promulgated as recently as Vatican I (1869-70) but have a long history which Roman Catholics trace ultimately to the will of Christ Matt 16:18 Luke 22:32 John 21:15-17 and the roles exercised by the Apostles Peter, fisherman shepherd elder rock etc in the NT Church.

In succeeding centuries the prestige of the Churchof Rome incrased since it was located at the Imperial capital and because its association with the Apostles Peter and Paul. It was increasingly looked to as the arbiter of orthodoxy. Pope Leo I maintained that Peter continues to speak to the whold church through the bishop of Rome.

Again Roman Catholic was only added to the name Catholic to show that we are part of the Church that is ran by the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church came to be identified by its differences with the Protestant Churchs.

Roman Catholic became a term that was for all of the Catholic Church’s that stayed by the teachings of Peter and the Bishops in succession. So any Church that is not Protestant and stays with the teachings of the Church of ROme are indeed part of the RCC.

 

[minkymurph]

I have a vague recollection of archaeological evidence currently being examined that may confirm Peter is in fact buried in St. Peter’s Bascillica.

Anyone else heard of it?

 

[Javl]

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.

Sorry, but they are NOT at all Catholic. As for Apostolic succession, that is a moot point. There is a question as to whether or not their orders are still valid since some of their clergy have been “odained” by heretical Bishops.

The LCC is very small in membership and they border on becoming cultic. They have twisted and distorted their liturgy and theology. As far as I know, their orders and sacraments are not licit or valid.

By the way, a number years ago there was a Roman Catholic priest ( African-American ) who claimed to being discrimnated by the Catholic Church and charging the Catholic Church with racism. He was the pastor of an entirely ( African-American ) Black Church. He left the Church, along with many of the parishoners, and formed his own “Black Catholic” Church. He proclaimed himself ArchBishop, and “ordained” some af the parishoners as priests. Needless to say, although he proclaims that he and his church are “Catholic” they most definitely are not. This what has happened with many of the other “Catholic” churches.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Hesychios]

I have a vague recollection of archaeological evidence currently being examined that may confirm Peter is in fact buried in St. Peter’s Bascillica.

Anyone else heard of it?

Yes.

 

[Javl]

Originally Posted by minkymurph:
Sorry, but got to disagree here. Apologies if I take your words out of context, but faith is based on reason. However, it is not based on reason alone. By it’s nature it cannot be. Thomas Aquinas writes extensively on the relationship between faith and reason. I would also say understanding is required as faith in the absence of understanding is blind belief.

I would like to emphasize here that faith is a free gift of God. It is by His grace alone that we have faith.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[minkymurph]

I would like to emphasize here that faith is a free gift of God. It is by His grace alone that we have faith.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Not sure about that one as it’s a bit too close to Calvin’s concept of pre-destination. I know you don’t mean that but I would go with Aquinas’ thinking; we can concent to the will of God of our own free will, up to a point, as we are made in the image of God.

Of course it is only a theory.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Yes.

My ex-girlfriend has seen St. Peter’s relics and a seminarian from my parish has been fortunate enough to touch either them or the container (likely the container).

newadvent.org/cathen/13374a.htm

This article is a few years out of date. The chamber has since been opened and St. Peter’s relics are venerated once more.

 

[guanophore]

This true Church is the Roman Catholic CHurch and the keys to the kingdom are still held at this Church by the Pope.

Many people disagree that the First Church was the Roman Catholic Church. But history proves that the first Church was indeed the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Cathoicism has been in general use since the reformation to identify the faith and practice of Christians in communion with the Pope.

This is exactly accurate, Rinnie. Although it is true that Roman Catholics are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, so are all the other 22 Catholic Rites that are not “Roman” or Latin in language or liturgy.

The Reformation was focused upon abuses in the Latin Rite, specifically in Europe at the time of the Reformation. Most of the Protestants at that time, and even members of the Latin Rite, were not even aware that the Eastern Rites existed. Although the beefs the Protestants have apply just as equally to the Eastern Rites (because we hold the same doctrine of the faith), Eastern Catholics do not abandon their liturgical and language differences in order to be in communion with Rome.

Romish Catholic or Roman Catholic was introduced by protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic.

As it turns out, refuting their objections by appealing to the non - “Roman” Rites is very effective. You can’t successfully blame things on "Rome’ that did not originate in Rome.

All of the Catholic Church’s that are in communion with the Church of Rome are all indeed part of the Roman Catholic Church.

NOt really, Rinnie. On the contrary, the Roman (Latin Rite) is part of the Catholic Church, along with all those who are in communion with the successor of Peter. the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

So there is only One Catholic Church but because of the reformation we became labled the Roman Catholic Church because of the pope and since Christ conferred the primacy on Peter.

I agree that there is only one Catholic church, and that the Latin rite inherited the title
“Roman”, but this was in ignorance. The Protestants did not understand that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

 

[Javl]

Not sure about that one as it’s a bit too close to Calvin’s concept of pre-destination. I know you don’t mean that but I would go with Aquinas’ thinking; we can concent to the will of God of our own free will, up to a point, as we are made in the image of God.

Of course it is only a theory.

Yes. I should have said that God gives us the grace for faith, freely, and it is up to us as to whether or not to accept it. Sorry for my lousing up what I meant to say ( been doing a lot of that lately ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem