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

[rinnie]

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.

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.

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”.

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”.

Well Guan rather you claim that the latin Church is Roman or not and no matter how it got its title it is still called the Roman Catholic Church today and it is indeed part of the Catholic Church. I understand that it is not ROMAN per say, but because it is now labeled the Roman Catholic Church ( which I am not sure it was of ignorance, I was told because of its location in Rome, and to show it’s connection to the Pope) the main point is we are still part of a family in Christ that are all united in all of our teachings.

To explain it quite simple, and the way Father explained it to me, Paul went one way and Peter went another after Jesus and were told to spread the good news to the ends of the world. Father said the only thing that we are separated in really is disciplines, which really are not that important. The most important thing is the Truth, and Paul and Peter indeed not only had the truth, they had the same truth. And we are brothers and sister UNITED in the same truth. And that is what counts.

THe way that Father explained it to me as long as any Church is in communion with Rome we are all united in the same faith, and the same truth.

 

[guanophore]

Well Guan rather you claim that the latin Church is Roman or not and no matter how it got its title it is still called the Roman Catholic Church today and it is indeed part of the Catholic Church.

We are in agreement that the Latin rite absorbed the insults of her enemies. The terms used by theProtestants to disparage her are many, and your examples are the “mild” ones!

We we are also in agreement that the Latin Rite is part of the Catholic Church. My objection is saying that the other 22 Rites are part of the Latin Church. I think my Western brethren often forget that the Catholic Church is no tall “Roman”.

It is helpful to keep this in mind, though, especially when debating with our “anti-papist” brethren, because the Catholic Church is often erroneously confused with “Romanism”. They labor under the false belief that Rome “invented” these doctrines, which is not the case. One of the best proofs that they did not is their existence in the Eastern Rites prior to Rome becoming a center of orthodoxy. Since all the non-Latin Rites, as well as our Eastern Orthodox brethren embrace these doctrines, it is clear they were not foised upon Chrisianity by the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome, or any other “Popish” source. These doctrines came from the Aposltes.

I understand that it is not ROMAN per say, but because it is now labeled the Roman Catholic Church ( which I am not sure it was of ignorance, I was told because of its location in Rome, and to show it's connection to the Pope)  the main point is we are still part of a family in Christ that are all united in all of our teachings.

Indeed we are united in doctrine, and in communion with the successor of Peter. However, it is only called “Roman” commonly here in the West, where the Latin Rite is the most common and largest. In only areas of the world, it is not called that.

To explain it quite simple, and the way Father explained it to me, Paul went one way and Peter went another after Jesus and were told to spread the good news to the ends of the world. Father said the only thing that we are separated in really is disciplines, which really are not that important.

I would not even call these differences in disciplies “separating” for us. They are differences of practice, dress, language, and liturgical calendar. There is no reason they should be considered “separating”. In fact, I think it is that mindset that fostered the Schism in the first place. The Latin leadership seemed to feel that everyone should “do like the Romans”, and this is not correct Catholic thinking. It was later corrected, and our current Holy Father is working and praying very hard to see that these distinctives do not “separate” the Church in any way.

I hope sometime you can attend Divine Liturgy in one of the Eastern Rites. It will be an eye opener for sure!

 

[rinnie]

We are in agreement that the Latin rite absorbed the insults of her enemies. The terms used by theProtestants to disparage her are many, and your examples are the “mild” ones!

We we are also in agreement that the Latin Rite is part of the Catholic Church. My objection is saying that the other 22 Rites are part of the Latin Church. I think my Western brethren often forget that the Catholic Church is no tall “Roman”.

It is helpful to keep this in mind, though, especially when debating with our “anti-papist” brethren, because the Catholic Church is often erroneously confused with “Romanism”. They labor under the false belief that Rome “invented” these doctrines, which is not the case. One of the best proofs that they did not is their existence in the Eastern Rites prior to Rome becoming a center of orthodoxy. Since all the non-Latin Rites, as well as our Eastern Orthodox brethren embrace these doctrines, it is clear they were not foised upon Chrisianity by the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome, or any other “Popish” source. These doctrines came from the Aposltes.

Indeed we are united in doctrine, and in communion with the successor of Peter. However, it is only called “Roman” commonly here in the West, where the Latin Rite is the most common and largest. In only areas of the world, it is not called that.

I would not even call these differences in disciplies “separating” for us. They are differences of practice, dress, language, and liturgical calendar. There is no reason they should be considered “separating”. In fact, I think it is that mindset that fostered the Schism in the first place. The Latin leadership seemed to feel that everyone should “do like the Romans”, and this is not correct Catholic thinking. It was later corrected, and our current Holy Father is working and praying very hard to see that these distinctives do not “separate” the Church in any way.

I hope sometime you can attend Divine Liturgy in one of the Eastern Rites. It will be an eye opener for sure!

I agree, But the only reason I said some of the differences, I did not mean by meaning its just some have communion, baptism, confirmation all at once. Others have them separate times. But only difference in disciplines, or practices, but we absolutely agree on the meanings

We may have different ways sometimes of going about things, but the meaning is all the same and we all have the exact same teachings in the word of God.

And I think that is the main thing we must stress, Alot of times these threads get blown out to make us argue about things that are silly.

My main goal is to show people that our Sheep are all part of the same Flock. Which is the main point of this thread to show we do indeed have the same exact teachings and do agree.

And there is only ONE Catholic Church and we are all part of it

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Guanaphore,

I enjoy and respect your posts, even in those times we do not share the same point of view. I thought I would make a few comments in reflecting over what you have posted here.

We are in agreement that the Latin rite absorbed the insults of her enemies.

It is a universal phenomenon. It’s not for nothing that Americans are called Yanks and Gringos.

We we are also in agreement that the Latin Rite is part of the Catholic Church. My objection is saying that the other 22 Rites are part of the Latin Church. I think my Western brethren often forget that the Catholic Church is not all “Roman”.

It is always 22 other Sui Iuris churches, not rites. To some people that can be as insulting (or more so) than calling the Latin church Roman, I kid you not.

The reason is for a long time these other churches were actually not churches according to their own law but rites subordinated to the Latin church, and subject to the Latin canon law. (As you have noted that relationship was sometimes abusive.)

Rite is a liturgical term.

Interestingly, the Latin church even today has more than one rite in use (I am not referring to the OF/EF nor Anglican Use nor the religious order unique variations, which are not rites in this sense, but actually the ancient and venerable Roman rite, Ambrosian rite and Mozarabic rite) in fact also does the Ethiopian Catholic church have two rites (some dioceses use the Roman rite, some use the Alexandrian rite). The rite is used by the Particular church. For this reason, when one applies for transfer of canonical enrollment, one applies to change to a particular church Sui Iuris (and the specific bishop), not to ‘change rites’ as it was once commonly called.

BTW, ‘Roman’ in reference to liturgical rite is appropriate, as they are often (indeed usually) referenced by the principal See or nation of origin, not the language.

I hope sometime you can attend Divine Liturgy in one of the Eastern Rites. It will be an eye opener for sure!

I think that this is good advice.

 

[Esdra]

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

Well, this is my point the modern Catholicism IS NOT the same as the Catholic Church of the Apostles 2000 years ago. So, maybe they would indeed recognize my point of the Catholic Church rather then yours.

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

Well, I know that this is the case from the (modern) Catholic point of view. For me, however, the community of all believers is indeed the Church founded by Christ Jesus.

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.

Yes, everything is relative!
Well, as I have stated a thousand times so far: The modern Catholic Churche(s) ARE NOT the Catholic Church of the Apostles!
Protestantism teaches everything according to the bible. There is no other gospel. It would be indeed another Gospel if they’d use the apocryphal books of the NT i.e.

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.

Well, then tell me, how should I know that the Catholic Chur church doesn’t reject noone who has a different believe than the official doctrine, when everybody around me (remember: Catholic surrounding. 80%) says so? The first person from whom I heared that the Protestant Churches (in my case the Anabaptists) are not a sect in her eyes and that she really was happy that I found Jesus was a deeply faithful charismatic Catholic (who attended school with me). This was the only person in real life that didn’t reject me and didn’t feel the need to evangelize me back to be Catholic. Well and I guess most people here in CAF think so.

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

As long as you stick firmly to the whole Bible (with or without evangelical apocrypha) you are not in a heresie. JWs are a heresy, the Mormons are a heresy, maybe SDA are a heresy -but the others aren’t! Maybe Christian Science and some others called “new-relevation” (not sure if this is the correct word, however) Churches.

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.

And so what? It is what I believe. And I know it is true. I am sure that my truth is not identical with the official Doctrine of the CC, but actually I don’t care. As you already know, I am only here to learn. I am simply interested to get to know what I have actually left (or will soon leave).

 

[Esdra]

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

As long as you stick firmly to the whole (with or without evangelical apocrypha) you are not in a heresie. JWs are a heresy, the Mormons are a heresy, maybe SDA are a heresy -but the others aren’t! Maybe Christian Science and some others called “new-relevation” (not sure if this is the correct word, however) Churches.

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.

And so what? It is what I believe. And I know it is true. I am sure that my truth is not identical with the official Doctrine of the CC, but actually I don’t care. As you already know, I am only here to learn. I am simply interested to get to know what I have actually left (or will soon leave).

 

[Esdra]

How would I treat an Anabaptist minister?

Well, don’t really know. Maybe you would try to evangelize him and try to convince him that the Catholic Church is the only true Church founded by Christ Jesus. - Well, actually similar as you are trying (and most others here) to do with me.

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

What makes you so sure that not the Catholic Church is a heresy? What would you say in front of the Lord’s throne if he asked you: “Why have converted to a heresy? - Off to hell with you?”
I have read ones an interesting article in our local newspaper- There it said: “Sociologically seen there are many truths”.

But can you really compare the heritcal sects, as you call them, of the NT with the ones know? Like the Monophysites and Gnostics. Well, with some indeed. - BUT the majority of the Protestant Churches are not heresies in the sense of the ones who have been alive 2000 years ago!

Well, this is good to know too!

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

After I have found Christ in the Anabaptist Church, I again got contact with Carina, the former school mate mentioned previously. She is not a pharisee.
Dad is not a pharisee - although I don’t really consider him Catholic. - He is more a protestant in his approach.
Well, granny maybe is also not a pharisee… Well, there are only VERY few! That’s so sad. I think the Catholic Church will go down, at least in Austria. Although actually I think that’s a good thing - so can develop “reformed” Catholics (like the Old Catholic Church. Have I already mentioned that I like them? )

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

Well, but what to do, in your opinion, if you are so to speak surrounded by them and nevertheless want to be a faithful Christian? Well, I started searching and I found what I was looking for. I mean most people just don’t care - the go away from the CC and never return. They call themselves Agnostics or Atheists and enjoy their lives with sex, drugs and rock’n’roll so to speak!

Yes. Have you ever been to Divine Liturgy?

Yes, I have been in an serbian orthodox mass. I found it really strange. People walking around during mass, kissing and buying icons and crosses. I felt like in the Temple before Christ casted out the salesmen… And the mass lasted 3 hours or so!

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.

Remember, we are all united in Christ’s Body. No mather wether we are Catholic, or Orthodox or a protestant. There IS already one visible Church - the community of all believers. It isn’t important that all become Catholic and accept the pope. “E pluribus unum”, it says on your dollar notes, doesn’t it? Do you know what that means? “From plurality to unity.” Isn’t it great that WE ARE ALREADY united in Christ Jesus? Think about it!

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

So did the Reformers. But they didn’t change the doctrine. The reformers were still bible based - and as the bible is the infaillable and inerrant word of God (on which we can all agree I guess) those parts of the doctrine they rejected (infaillability of the pope etc) were eliminated by the Holy Ghost. God wanted the CC to reform. And they also did start to do so because of the reformers. But since Vaticanum II they stopped to reform. And I think this isn’t the Will of God. (Reforms that need to be taken is: femal ordination, no celibacy etc)

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

If this will really be the case, I would either go the the Lutherans (although even there are a lot of “pharisees” already, especially in parts of Germany where it is the main religion), the Old Catholic Church, or to the Methodists (Ever been on their homepage? They are great!)

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

I know. But I also know that Jesus had told me to leave the RCC and to look for a new Church - do you really think I would have started searching, if Jesus would have wanted me to stay in “his one true apostolic catholic Church”?

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

Truth is revealed by God into your heard. I realized that so often. I know that I know the truth. And that it’s not in the Catholic Church (at least not together with “false truths”).

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.

Which is the community of all believers. I AM already part of Jesus’ ONE CHURCH.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Protestantism teaches everything according to the bible. There is no other gospel.

uch:

Lutherans believe (biblically of course) that Christ is present in their communion. Baptist teach no such thing. Which “Protestantism” is teaching everything “according to the Bible”?



God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

So did the Reformers. But they didn’t change the doctrine. The reformers were still bible based -

Luther believed in the Real Presence of Christ in communion, Zwingli did not. Which Reformer was “Bible based”? You have been deceived if you believe that Protestantism is all one big happy family. Why focus on the differences with Catholics when you turn such a blind eye to the differences within Protestantism?

God bless

 

[Esdra]

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.

How do you know? Maybe this is exactely meant when Luke wrote in Acts 17:10-12:

NASB:

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.

** 11** Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

** 12** Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

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 do listen to what you are saying. I said I am here to learn about Catholicismm, as I was never fully catechised, but this doesn’t mean that I accept what you are saying as “the Truth”.
I don’t reject the faith upon missconcetpions - in many ways I just don’t know better!
I do accept the CC as a Christian Church, but it has among many truths, also some other, “untrue” elements in it.

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 simply can’t be in such a Church that’s all. It’s maybe true that the doctrine of the CC is the Truth, but this is senseless because one has also to see that it is the truth, like James wrote in Jm 2:14: “14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith * but he has no works? Can that faith save him? [or: Can the truth alone save him?]”

What I found out in the Anabaptist’s Church is that they have faith and, and this is most important, also according to Jm 2:14, live it. Most Catholics I got to know are far away from that!

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!

Again: What is truth? I know that I have the truth according to the Holy Bible; you claim to have the the truth according to the ST and the SS. See, what I mean? (also refer my previous post for “truth”)

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

Why should I want to be a Catholic? I know what I believe and I know that it is true. Please don’t try to evangelize me to the Catholic faith! I am willing to learn, but this doesn’t mean I will at once accept all Catholic doctrines and became all of a sudden a Catholic again!

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

No, of course not. I am not interested in administrating the CC. Why should I? Since I am nearly gone already? No, I wanted to say that the reason why there are so many schisms is that the CC it too big to be ruled centrally (I know this is important for preserving the ST and so on) - but in fact it is easier to have small dioceses who act autonomically (united by the Nicene Creed and the Holy Scripture; or other parametres) like it is the case i.e. in the Old Catholic Church.

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.

Again: Jesus not only meant the Apostles BUT EVERYONE to spread the gospel - EVERYONE who believes in Him. He didn’t like the pharisees, didn’t he? Now listen, actually, if Jesus really would have meant that the Apostles should administer His Church, he would have had the same situation in His Church like it is (and was) among the Jewish religion.
Don’t forget: the apostles were his first disciples. Why then should this mission not also count for all others disciples like me and you?

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.

No, I think you didn’t get me. I meant that people who are only on the paper Catholic call those Catholics who stick firmely to the CC Doctrine as bigots, fundamentalists and fanatics and they are considered to be even dangerous and people will call untrue stories about them in the village. This is the reason why I didn’t start searching in the CC because nearly ALL people (remember: 80% “Catholics”) warned me from people like those.*

 

[rinnie]

Well, don’t really know. Maybe you would try to evangelize him and try to convince him that the Catholic Church is the only true Church founded by Christ Jesus. - Well, actually similar as you are trying (and most others here) to do with me.

What makes you so sure that not the Catholic Church is a heresy? What would you say in front of the Lord’s throne if he asked you: “Why have converted to a heresy? - Off to hell with you?”
I have read ones an interesting article in our local newspaper- There it said: “Sociologically seen there are many truths”.

But can you really compare the heritcal sects, as you call them, of the NT with the ones know? Like the Monophysites and Gnostics. Well, with some indeed. - BUT the majority of the Protestant Churches are not heresies in the sense of the ones who have been alive 2000 years ago!

After I have found Christ in the Anabaptist Church, I again got contact with Carina, the former school mate mentioned previously. She is not a pharisee.
Dad is not a pharisee - although I don’t really consider him Catholic. - He is more a protestant in his approach.
Well, granny maybe is also not a pharisee… Well, there are only VERY few! That’s so sad. I think the Catholic Church will go down, at least in Austria. Although actually I think that’s a good thing - so can develop “reformed” Catholics (like the Old Catholic Church. Have I already mentioned that I like them? )

Well, but what to do, in your opinion, if you are so to speak surrounded by them and nevertheless want to be a faithful Christian? Well, I started searching and I found what I was looking for. I mean most people just don’t care - the go away from the CC and never return. They call themselves Agnostics or Atheists and enjoy their lives with sex, drugs and rock’n’roll so to speak!

Yes, I have been in an serbian orthodox mass. I found it really strange. People walking around during mass, kissing and buying icons and crosses. I felt like in the Temple before Christ casted out the salesmen… And the mass lasted 3 hours or so!

Remember, we are all united in Christ’s Body. No mather wether we are Catholic, or Orthodox or a protestant. There IS already one visible Church - the community of all believers. It isn’t important that all become Catholic and accept the pope. “E pluribus unum”, it says on your dollar notes, doesn’t it? Do you know what that means? “From plurality to unity.” Isn’t it great that WE ARE ALREADY united in Christ Jesus? Think about it!

So did the Reformers. But they didn’t change the doctrine. The reformers were still bible based - and as the bible is the infaillable and inerrant word of God (on which we can all agree I guess) those parts of the doctrine they rejected (infaillability of the pope etc) were eliminated by the Holy Ghost. God wanted the CC to reform. And they also did start to do so because of the reformers. But since Vaticanum II they stopped to reform. And I think this isn’t the Will of God. (Reforms that need to be taken is: femal ordination, no celibacy etc)

If this will really be the case, I would either go the the Lutherans (although even there are a lot of “pharisees” already, especially in parts of Germany where it is the main religion), the Old Catholic Church, or to the Methodists (Ever been on their homepage? They are great!)

I know. But I also know that Jesus had told me to leave the RCC and to look for a new Church - do you really think I would have started searching, if Jesus would have wanted me to stay in “his one true apostolic catholic Church”?

Truth is revealed by God into your heard. I realized that so often. I know that I know the truth. And that it’s not in the Catholic Church (at least not together with “false truths”).

Which is the community of all believers. I AM already part of Jesus’ ONE CHURCH.

Esdra please, you are saying that you are actually blaming Jesus for your rejection of the Catholic Church and the teaching’s of the CC. Come on Esdra.

And that is a question you need to ask yourself, and only you can answer as far as why you are searching for a new Church. But to blame God

And you cannot blame God if you choose to leave the RCC and search for another Church. God gave you free will did he not? But just because he gave you free will, is not a good enough reason to blame him for the will you have chosen.

As Sister would have said in the Catholic School. This is unacceptable Esdra.

I have heard the devil made me do it, But To blame Jesus!

 

[Esdra]

² rinnie

Well, actually I simply don’t want to be a part of a Church who preaches but most people simply don’t live according to the teaching, who behave like pharisees.
There are no works. If you know what I mean!

What does this have to do with blaming Jesus? Jesus can’t help that most of his sheep in the one true flock, the CC, don’t follow him!!

And please don’t make a full quote of my post. The thread will get unreadable by time.

 

[Esdra]

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.

I think you didn’t quite get me. I meant that people who are faithful Catholics (very few only are here in Austria) are considered by the others as bigots, fundamentalists, fanatics and are sometimes even regarded as dangerous, mentally ill people. Tell me one thing, why should I, as a spiritual hungry person, start searching for Jesus exactely in the CC when most people (in fact: nearly all; only in the meantime, after talking to Carina, my former school mate who is a very faithful Charismatic Catholic, I know that these people are true Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus!) say so when I became hungry and thirsty for Christ 8 years ago? Why should I search among those people who to 60% or more don’t live according to their faith - are only Catholics on the paper? See my problem?

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.

It’s always good to agree. Then we can see that we are not that different then one may think if he starts reading here!
That’s not a failure in logic! People don’t only have to know the gospel and going to Mass every Sunday (or even worse are only Catholics on the paper!), they also have to live a Christian life. I have found hardly noone who did so here in Austria, Europe!!

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.

Yes, he did. But he sort of, lost grip over the situation. Many points of Vaticanum II were rejected afterwards or not even implemented (as my father has told me. - I haven’t read V II; he did and he loved the ideas there. He is even more angry, as you can imagine, since many points were rejected afterwords).
The CC has to change things like the femal ordination or the celibacy (since the child abuse scandals, people more and more cry for this change. Also here in Austria! Even theologlical Scholars!) and so on. To summerize, it has to become more like the Anglican Church or, even better, the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht!

 

[Esdra]

Luther believed in the Real Presence of Christ in communion, Zwingli did not. Which Reformer was “Bible based”? You have been deceived if you believe that Protestantism is all one big happy family. Why focus on the differences with Catholics when you turn such a blind eye to the differences within Protestantism?

God bless

I am not so familiar with the differences within the protestant Churches.

I have been a Catholic for 16 years (so I am still, officially), then started searching, and found what I was looking for, namely Christ Jesus, in the protestant Churches (respectful the Anabaptists).

But according to our Pastor we are indeed a great big protestant Family! The differences are really only marginals as far as I got to know.

 

[Esdra]

uch:

Lutherans believe (biblically of course) that Christ is present in their communion. Baptist teach no such thing. Which “Protestantism” is teaching everything “according to the Bible”?



God bless you

I have been talking to a Lutheran pastor concerning communion and he said it is “only in remembrance what Jesus did for us on the cross” - actually the same then what I have been taught by our Anabaptist pastor.
He didn’t say a single word about the real presence!

 

[GKC]

I have been talking to a Lutheran pastor concerning communion and he said it is “only in remembrance what Jesus did for us on the cross” - actually the same then what I have been taught by our Anabaptist pastor.
He didn’t say a single word about the real presence!

Ask about it around here.

GKC

 

[Esdra]

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.

You really can’t tell me that the popes didn’t approve this behavior in the points mentioned above! If the CC is really the one Church established by Christ Jesus - then why didn’t he stop those actions? Why didn’t he react when he got to know what his representator on Earth is doing? If I was god, and this was really my church, I would have reacted at once to protect it from such sinful actions!!

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.

I KNOW the truth indeed - and it was reavealed to my by studying His word through our almighty Lord in Heaven. He said: “7 Ask and it will be given to you; **seek and you will find; **knock and the door will be opened to you.” (Mt 7:7), didn’t he?

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!

There we are. Why should they be false and the teachings of the (R)CC should be correct? I am convinced it can be also vice versa. (please also confer my other post for this!)

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

Who says that they didn’t get out of a dead end - of Catholcism? I am sure this point is also considerable!

Ok, because that is another matter.

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

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

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

?? Don’t really get it. What do the Apostles forbid? Not to follow his successors? The teachings of the Apostles are to be found in the NT! - So it is enough to follow the apostles according to what they wrote in the NT (whose canon the early Church throught the Holy Ghost fixed - as we know in the meantime! So again: Of course not everything is wrong in the CC. Especially the early CC was lead pretty well by the HS, if would say.)

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

I didn’t. See above. This has to do with another understanding of the ST between you and me!

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.

It says in the NT. Why should the understanding be deficient then? We all are disciples of Christ and he promised us to send us the Holy Ghost which will lead us into the fulness of truth (and also is the key to the Scriptures! - By the way, this was a relavtion to me when I became a reborn Christian. I didn’t know why I had said that, the HS had laid that on my soul. No joke. The Lord is great HALLELUJA. )

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

You are right. The further away they get from His word the Holy Bible the more bizarre they get. Especially when they start using their “own Holy Scriptures” live Universal Living, the Mormons, the JWs (although they claim they don’t - but they have the Watch Tower Organisation and the presidancy!) and many more sects!

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

I am Catholic baptised, yes. I haven’t joined heresies, but the Truth revealed unto me via the Holy Bible. But not only because of that, but, and that’s even more important, because of my believe to Christ Jesus I belong to His Body (even if I wasn’t baptized!)

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.

But Jesus knew that from the first hour - and he led them go.
BUT why didn’t Jesus so drastically react when the Church (which is btw of course errant! see my various posts on that topic!) went astray the one or other occation?

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

Isn’t that enough?
I would say it’s great that everybody who believes to Christ Jesus and sticks to His Word, the Holy Bible (withough other Holy Scriptures or Traditions or other “unbiblical stuff”) is in His Church.
Why do you absolutely want that only Catholics are in His Church?
Why does the Catholic Church want that at all? Wasn’t it Jesus who came to everybody, even to the sinners and poor and ill?
Why would Jesus all of sudden only want to have a specific group of “Christians” (Christians in quotation marks because I doubt that the CC thinks that they even are! Which is ignorant btw!) in His Church?

 

[Javl]

Well, this is my point the modern Catholicism IS NOT the same as the Catholic Church of the Apostles 2000 years ago. So, maybe they would indeed recognize my point of the Catholic Church rather then yours.

In what way is the Catholic Church different? In my studies, I find no difference in the Church today from the Church of 2000 years ago.

Well, I know that this is the case from the (modern) Catholic point of view. For me, however, the community of all believers is indeed the Church founded by Christ Jesus.

Which is the Catholic Church. Can you prove otherwise?

Yes, everything is relative!
Well, as I have stated a thousand times so far: The modern Catholic Churche(s) ARE NOT the Catholic Church of the Apostles!
Protestantism teaches everything according to the bible. There is no other gospel. It would be indeed another Gospel if they’d use the apocryphal books of the NT i.e.

The Catholic Church IS the Catholic Church of the Apostles, for it teaches the same truths today, without change, alteration, modification, etc., that the Apostles taught 2000 years ago. Trying to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility. Everything that the Catholic Church teaches is based in, and supported by scripture ( the Bible ). The apochryphal books are part of the canon of the Bible. These books were rejected by Luther and others because they did not fit into their idea of scripture. Including them completes the Gospel.

Well, then tell me, how should I know that the Catholic Chur church doesn’t reject noone who has a different believe than the official doctrine, when everybody around me (remember: Catholic surrounding. 80%) says so? The first person from whom I heared that the Protestant Churches (in my case the Anabaptists) are not a sect in her eyes and that she really was happy that I found Jesus was a deeply faithful charismatic Catholic (who attended school with me). This was the only person in real life that didn’t reject me and didn’t feel the need to evangelize me back to be Catholic. Well and I guess most people here in CAF think so.

A true Catholic ( not a cafeteria Catholic, or one who does not know anything ) will not reject you because of your belief. The Catholic will try to dispell whatever lies, myths, and misunderstandings about Catholicism that you have been told or taught. It then it is up to you to follow through.

As long as you stick firmly to the whole Bible (with or without evangelical apocrypha) you are not in a heresie. JWs are a heresy, the Mormons are a heresy, maybe SDA are a heresy -but the others aren’t! Maybe Christian Science and some others called “new-relevation” (not sure if this is the correct word, however) Churches.

Yep, these are all heretical and very anti-Catholic. They are not Christian in the true sense (Except for the SDA which is borderline ), for they do not accept Christ as God.

And so what? It is what I believe. And I know it is true. I am sure that my truth is not identical with the official Doctrine of the CC, but actually I don’t care. As you already know, I am only here to learn. I am simply interested to get to know what I have actually left (or will soon leave).

And that is what the CAF is for, to learn what is true and truth.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I have been talking to a Lutheran pastor concerning communion and he said it is “only in remembrance what Jesus did for us on the cross” - actually the same then what I have been taught by our Anabaptist pastor.
He didn’t say a single word about the real presence!

I said the Lutheran “Church” teaches, not what a single Lutheran “Pastor” teaches which does not match what the Church teaches. Do a little reading for yourself:

From the Augsburg Confession

Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

bookofconcord.com/augsburgconfession.php#article10

Now back to the question; who is teaching “accordong to the Bible”?

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I am not so familiar with the differences within the protestant Churches.

I have been a Catholic for 16 years (so I am still, officially), then started searching, and found what I was looking for, namely Christ Jesus, in the protestant Churches (respectful the Anabaptists).

But according to our Pastor we are indeed a great big protestant Family! The differences are really only marginals as far as I got to know.

No I am sorry, your Pastor, though I am sure he means well, is lying to you or he just doesn’t know. Go read the discourse between Luther and Zwingli at the Marburg Castle (look up Marburg Colloguy) then tell me how marginal Luther thought the differences were.

If you are going to label the differences amongst Protestants as marginal then, to avoid the appearance of being hypocritical, you must do so with the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

God bless you