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

[Esdra]

Well, don’t believe everything you hear!

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

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!

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

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

No, it’s not. It is the only way the CC can exist in future! Believe me, my prediction will become true the sooner the later. Latest if we get a liberal (eucumenical orientated) Black-African pope! This is what my dad keeps saying for years now!

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.

The Old Catholic Church/Utrecht is not into error and also abandoned the faith. If ever, I would have guessed that the “first Catholic Church” was more similar to the Old Catholic Church than to the Roman Catholic Church (except for the ordination of women [but stop! who knows? Maybe!!] - due to patriarchatic times which are over in the 21. century, as you already may have realized! )

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.

I am even free to believe in Christ Jesus and not believe in the (Roman) Catholic Church .
We don’t need the gift of infallibility. The Holy Bible read by the Holy Ghost is enough!
By the way: as far as I know the gift of infallibility is not biblical. Otherwise please show me the verse. - I am interested.

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.

No, I really don’t understand this! Wouldn’t it be the duty of the Church to teach the people how to live according to the word of God? Do they so? No, what they did for the last few years is saying that sexuality is bad for example - and other moralic dogmas!
See, this is the problem with the Catholic Church and the infant baptism (especially when you are poorley catechised afterward, which most people are!). If you are “forced” to become Catholic but never catechised and you start longin for Christ, isn’t it logical then, if you start searching among “heresies” or even worse sects?. But if you decide YOURSELF for Christ Jesus, it is more likely that you live a Christian life because you love Him!

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

No, I was really very poorley catechised, believe me!

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

Well, its clear that you will always tell me that I’ve been misled when I say something else than the official doctrine of the CC.
Nevertheless, I know it’s true.

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.

What, it didn’t? What about Peter then, the “first pope”. I don’t really get it!
Do you know what this means then? That the Old Catholic Church, the Anglican Church , the Episcopal Church and the Orthodox Churches are true Churches. So there IS more then one true Church?!
I thought the Eucharist is the visible symbol of unity? What know?

There is unity in the Church founded by Christ.

Apparantly not, see above!

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”.

If this is really the case then I have to become Agnostic because then Jesus didn’t give us the Holy Spirit and we are not able to read the Bible, because there is no key to read it (which would be the Holy Spirit). See, my problem with this point?

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.

Oh wow, a comment from you I like and I can agree on. (the second sentence).
And you really think that god would throw a faithful Christian into hell, simply because he is not Catholic? Do you really think god is so stingy?! Finally he promised us that everybody who believes in His name is saved:
"Mk 16,16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. "
Jn 10,9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.
Rom 10,9 That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is [the] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

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.

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

 

[Esdra]

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

EVERYONE only has parts of the truth. refer my previous post for that!
I haven’t embraced a heresy. This is what God had revealed to me. And he also lead me to the protestant Church. Why should he do that, if it is a heresy?

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.

Well, and I embrace what God has revealed to ME in His Word, the Holy Bible and where He has lead me.

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.

Isn’t being catechised the basis to understand what is going on during mass and to understand the whole doctrine of the CC? I am a little confused now.
Because if you don’t need understanding, then why didn’t I find what I was looking for in the CC?!
What IS being catechised then?

God bless you all,
in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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

I do not believe this is correct, particularly the LCMS. I could be mistaken though.

The Old Catholic Church/Utrecht is not into error and also abandoned the faith. If ever, I would have guessed that the “first Catholic Church” was more similar to the Old Catholic Church than to the Roman Catholic Church (except for the ordination of women [but stop! who knows? Maybe!!] -** due to patriarchatic times which are over in the 21. **century, as you already may have realized! )

What are you saying in the bold part? Are you saying that truth/practice/dogma should bend to the times? Could you clarify.

No, I really don’t understand this! Wouldn’t it be the duty of the Church to teach the people how to live according to the word of God? Do they so? No, what they did for the last few years is saying that sexuality is bad for example - and other moralic dogmas!
See, this is the problem with the** Catholic Church and the infant baptism **(especially when you are poorley catechised afterward, which most people are!).

Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Methodists all Baptize infants. If the CC does it because its Catholic and doesn’t follow the Bible, what is their excuse? BTW is infant baptism an example of Protestant unity that you talked about?

And you really think that god would throw a faithful Christian into hell, simply because he is not Catholic?

I don’t believe anyone said this and if someone did it is no matter because it is not what the Church teaches. Please take the time to understand the Church which you seem to object to so much. It only makes sense that if you are going to protest against something you should know what that something teaches/stand for

God bless

 

[rinnie]

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 what gives you the right to judge others. Does the bible not say that God knows ones heart and God will judge us.

Personally I have NEVER had a problem wth any other faith before. My motto was as long as they follow God and are doing the best they can God knows a heart.

But from the posts you have been doing lately I feel sorry for you my friend, that you are part of a Church that has the gull to call us Pharasies. God forgive you and them. I am shocked.

My Dad was the best example of a Roman Catholic or Christian I have ever saw in my life. He was a credit to the Catholic CHurch. He was one who lived his faith. ANd the Pope is another example. And lets not even start with the Saints. And our Pope now is wonderful in teaching and helping so many souls.

I pray I will never become a part of a Church that would ever judge PEOPLE the way you do, and your Church teaches. Tell me when have you EVER heard the Catholic Church or Priest preach and call others separated from the faith pharisees. I will pray for you, for you are way off base. You really need alot of prayers.

I have gone to church all of my life and for the 47 years of my life I NEVER heard the Catholic CHurch or Priest ever say mean things of our brothers and sisters separated from us in faith.

Calling us pharisesees is not only something a Catholic would never do to others, but according to the Church something a Christian should never do. We in the RCC are taught only God can judge others. And if our brothers or sisters are sinning to pray for them but never pass judgement over them. That is for God to do.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

EVERYONE only has parts of the truth. refer my previous post for that!
I haven’t embraced a heresy. This is what God had revealed to me. And he also lead me to the protestant Church. Why should he do that, if it is a heresy?

There is no such thing as “the” protestant church. There are protestant churches and, no doubt, you believe God led you to one of them, but He did not have lead you to The Protestant Church.

I have said this before, you have been deceived if you believe that Protestantism is all one big happy family (when I say this I mean doctrinally). Do not make Protestantism out to be something it is not. These issues you bring up are just as much Protestant vs. Protestant issues as they are Catholic vs Protestant issues.

God bless

 

[Javl]

Esdra:

I’ve been reading your posts and I find that you have a lot of mis-information about Catholicism and know practically nothing of its history. You depend too much on what people say and don’t seem to investigate the veracity of their statements. As such you have developed a definite anti-Catholic bias. Read and learn about the early Church Fathers, Church History, etc. There are many books written about Christianity, not only by Catholics and Protestants, but also by non-Christians. You should read them all and learn.

For instance, do you know that Catholics in the Catholic Church formulated the Bible? That the Catholic Church is called “the Mother of the Bible”? That the Bible you use is Catholic? If the Catholic Church put the Bible together, does it make sense that it would teach anything other than what is in the Bible? Read: thecatholictreasurechest.com/canon.htm.

So please, before you make any judgements, please make sure you have the full and correct information.

God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[peary]

Hi,

does anybody know how many Churches there are that claim to be Catholic?

I know so far:
The Roman Catholic Church
The Eastern Catholics
The LCC
the PNCC
and the Old Catholics (who are mostly to be found in Europe!).

Actually I even dare to say that also the Anglican Church is more Catholic than Protestant…

Are there more? Why is even the Catholic Church divided? If it has the fulness of Truth - how can this be possible?

What are the perspectives of these Churches towards each other?

Esdra

Churches of the East that have valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments are part of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. If they do not have either valid apostolic succession or sacraments, then they are separated from the Church. Some of these are schismatic, and that separates them, but they are still part of the Church, though their successions or sacraments are valid but illicit.

 

[Esdra]

Churches of the East that have valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments are part of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. If they do not have either valid apostolic succession or sacraments, then they are separated from the Church. Some of these are schismatic, and that separates them, but they are still part of the Church, though their successions or sacraments are valid but illicit.

Thank you. This is a very informative post.
So, I am right to say that there are more “true Churches” than the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Bu I don’t get the part of your post written in bold? Why should they be valid, but illicit? This doesn’t make sense to me!

God bless,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

With the pharisee thing I only meant that most people who call themselves Catholics are Catholic on their paper but don’t live a Christian life.
I think most of you missunderstood this point.

I am a spiritual thirsty and hungry person. I simply can’t be part of a Church who has so many “members” who are not Christians. Do you understand what I am trying so say?
I have always thought that I am rather good in English and am well able to write down what I want to do so. But apparently this is not always the case in this thread…

If Catholics are Christians, and some are, they should live a Christian life, doesn’t it say so in the Bible?

If the Catholic Church is REALLY the Church Christ founded and promised to protect it, then why hasn’t he react, when he sees what is going on in His Church? People violating His commandments? Like loving thy neighbor than yourself, or being a temple of Christ and so on?!
**
To the Protestand family:**

You could say there are actually two:

***1) ***the fundamentalist Evangelicals like: Pentecostals, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Baptists (maybe even the SDA is to put in this category, although someone correctly said here that, they are borderline) and similar ones. (Hope I haven’t forgotten any important!)
They are a big family. They visit each others services and they indeed have little to no differences in doctrine.

*2) *the reformatoric, evangelical Churches: Lutherans, Episcopolean, Anglicans and Methodists and similar ones. (I don’t know so many… Are there more that would fit into this group?)
They are also a big family. The differences in doctrine are also here very small.
Group 1 and 2, however, (at least in Austria) don’t hate each other, despite the bigger differences in Doctrine. Both are open to all who want to go a part of their life with them - Even between these groups.

**3) **Apostolic (reformatoric), Catholic Churches: Old Catholic/Utrecht, Anglicans (they belong to both groups I would say!), PNCC, Philippine Catholic Church (and all other Churches who left Utrecht after 2007 [women ordination in the Utrecht Churches!])
Finally the Orthodox Churches (including the Orientals) and the Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome.
They also have only “marginal” differences in Doctrine and most of them are to be considered schismatic.
They all have the Apostolic Succession (except when someone is ordained by a “heretical” bishop or female bishop). So they all are part of the “true apostolic, catholic, orthodox Church” founded by Christ Jesus.
So I am right that there is far more than one “Catholic, apostolic, orthodox, true, one Church”!.

Well, and as **fourth **group you can take “the Christian sects” - like JWs, Mormons, Christian Science, Univeral Living, Fiat Lux and similar ones.
Interestingly enough I guess that they are also seen to be protestant in some of the people’s eyes here in CAF. At least some of those sects call themselves protestants. Although for me they don’t have anything to do with protestants - well even nothing with Christianity at all.

So where do you some of you see now 30.000+ protestant Churches arguing and fighting each other?
There are only two groups of Protestants - so my pastor was sort of even right.

And yes, as someone has written privious: I think the Church should go with the time (concerning women ordination for example.)

Best wishes,
in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

There are only two groups of Protestants - so my pastor was sort of even right.

No, neither of you are correct. Not even sort of. You can gloss over the differences and say that they are not “major” but you are really just being subjective as it is YOU who is deciding what is and is not important. You have decided that the differences between you and Catholics are major and that the ones between you and your Protestant brothers and sisters are not so much. It gives the appearance of hypocrisy and it shows that, because you are unwilling to acknowledge and take account of the differences within Protestantism, that your problem is not with different (or even incorrect) doctrine but with Catholicism. There are MAJOR differences in doctrine among the Protestant communities that you grouped (even together), that is the reason why they are separate. Infant baptism, communion so on and so forth.

And yes, as someone has written privious: I think the Church should go with the time (concerning women ordination for example.)

Which times should Christ’s Church bend to? 1st century Rome? 17th Century France? 20th Century Nazi Germany? The problem with the Church “going with the time” is that the Church would be just that, something of the time, and not enternal. Since it is Christ’s body and it is enternal, perhaps the times should bend to it? CS Lewis called your error *chronological snobery *(something is better for no other reason than because it is more modern). I agree with him.

God bless you

 

[Esdra]

No, neither of you are correct. Not even sort of. You can gloss over the differences and say that they are not “major” but you are really just being subjective as it is YOU who is deciding what is and is not important. You have decided that the differences between you and Catholics are major and that the ones between you and your Protestant brothers and sisters are not so much. It gives the appearance of hypocrisy and it shows that, because you are unwilling to acknowledge and take account of the differences within Protestantism, that your problem is not with different (or even incorrect) doctrine but with Catholicism. There are MAJOR differences in doctrine among the Protestant communities that you grouped (even together), that is the reason why they are separate. Infant baptism, communion so on and so forth.

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

Which times should Christ’s Church bend to? 1st century Rome? 17th Century France? 20th Century Nazi Germany? The problem with the Church “going with the time” is that the Church would be just that, something of the time, and not enternal. Since it is Christ’s body and it is enternal, perhaps the times should bend to it? CS Lewis called your error *chronological snobery *(something is better for no other reason than because it is more modern). I agree with him.

Well, what about the 21st century?
Do you really think I am talking about the PAST?!
At least concerning celibacy (by the way that is not even biblical!) and women ordination I would definetely go with the 21st century - well, simply going by the time.
The role of women have changed… There is no patriarchy anymore like it was let’s say 100 years ago. You see my point?
I think this would be a BIG step towards Eucomeny!! - and resulting maybe even in the reunification of the Churches to one “real body in Christ Jesus” - to one visible Church founded by Christ Jesus.

God bless you,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Well, the thing with the Black-African Popes is not my idea, but my dads.
Actually, since I left the CC 8 years ago, I don’t really care what they do down there in Rome.
But this doesn’t mean that I don’t like to discuss with you. I am always interested to learn something now. But I can only repeat it: This doesn’t mean that I am willing to convert because all of a sudden I think everything the CC teaches is true and that it is indeed the Church founded by Christ Jesus.

Tell me one (or more) reason what speaks against it!
Every Church except the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches (in communion with Rome) have the women ordination…

 

[guanophore]

Hello Guanaphore,

I enjoy and respect your posts, even in those times we do not share the same point of view.

And I yours!

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.)

Yes, I find the “subordination” to “Rome” to be grievious in many respects. Jesus was so clear that the leadership in His kingdom was not to “lord it over” others, yet, the leadership seems to have suffered from this malady since the beginning. As the Scriptures say, He knows the hearts of men.

Rite is a liturgical term.

It seems to me progress that the Bishops of Rome have been able to tolerate the liturgical distinctives of the East, and not to force the Latin methods and practices upon them.

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.

Yes, however, I am afraid this distinction is lost upon our separated brethren, who understand the differences in liturgy and ecclesiastical authority to represent more than on “Church” as they understand it in Protestant terminology. I refer to them as Rites on threads like this to clarify the unity in doctrine.

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.

What chaps me is the reference to the entire Catholic Communion as "Roman"because it is intolerant of other practices in communion with Rome.

Thank you for your fine (as usual) post.

 

[guanophore]

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. ;)

You have made it clear that you have limited understanding of both the Catholic Church as a mustard seed 2000 years ago, as well as the largest mustard tree that exists presently. It is more a matter of your PERCEPTION of the Church that is not the same. People’s perceptions are influenced by their experiences and education (or lack of it) and therefore, are biased.

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.

What you don’t seem to realize is that the Catholic Church teaches that all who have been born again are members of tbe One, True Church, founded by Christ.

Yes, everything is relative!

It is good that you know this. It means you are more likely to benefit from education. If you come to find that your education on history was relative, you will realize it isincomplete.

Well, as I have stated a thousand times so far: The modern Catholic Churche(s) ARE NOT the Catholic Church of the Apostles!

Well, ok, Esdra. I will leave you to your personal convictions. It seems that we will be able to do very little to enrich you here. People that already have their minds made up about something are not usually open to learning that they may be mistaken.

Protestantism teaches everything according to the bible.

No, Esda, they don’t . They, like yourself, teach according to their PERCEPTION of the Bible, which is limited and which is, especially in the case of Modern American Evagelicals, quite a departure from what the A’postles believed and taught.

There is no other gospel. It would be indeed another Gospel if …

From the point of view of the Apostolic Churches, The whole of Protestantism is “another gospel”, because all of it departs from that which was committed to the Church by the Apostles. Some have retained much more of the faith, others less. It is a matter of degree.

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?

“everyone around” you are individuals with their own (and possibly erroneous) opinons. The Catholic Church teaches that all are welcome. God desires that all be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the Truth. It is regrettable that the average Catholic is not familiar with the teachings of the Church. It does help to explain, however, how it is that you have so many misunderstandings about the Catholic faith.

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).

I am glad that you found one Catholic who seems to be apprised of the teachings of the Church. Not sure that Anabaptists still don’t qualify as a sect, however.

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.

Rejecting heresy is one thing, rejecting PEOPLE is another! Of course we have to reject heresies! It is our duty. However, we don’t have to reject the PEOPLE just because they have unwittingly embraced heresy.

I would not bother to attempt to evangelize a person who claims they are Christian. What would be the point?

As long as you stick firmly to the whole Bible (with or without evangelical apocrypha) you are not in a heresie.

I am sorry that you believe this. What you are saying is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can read the “whole bible” and then, according to what they THINK it means, believe it and they are not in heresy. Unfortunately, it is this kind of thinking that has spawned and perpetuates the majority of heresies.

JWs are a heresy, the Mormons are a heresy, maybe SDA are a heresy -but the others aren’t!

This does not count for much, since your standard is yourself and your own opinion. Of course all that don’t agree with what you believe will be considered to have fallen short of the Truth!

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.

Well, thank you for saying so. It gives me a better perspective on your state of mind. It does cause me curiousity as to why you are here?

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).

It is clear that you never had “catholic” faith, Esdra. You never took the time to explore that into which you were baptized. You will answer to God for it.

You are in a large majority who have pushed away the gift of their baptism and chosen to embrace heresies. I was among them as well, until I studied history, and realized that the Catholic Church of today is the same as Jesus founded.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

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

Well, what about the 21st century?
Do you really think I am talking about the PAST?!
At least concerning celibacy ([SIGN]by the way that is not even biblical[/SIGN]!) and women ordination I would definetely go with the 21st century - well, simply going by the time.
The role of women have changed… There is no patriarchy anymore like it was let’s say 100 years ago. You see my point?
I think this would be a BIG step towards Eucomeny!! - and resulting maybe even in the reunification of the Churches to one “real body in Christ Jesus” - to one visible Church founded by Christ Jesus.

God bless you,
Esdra

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

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

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

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

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

You have made it clear that you have limited understanding of both the Catholic Church as a mustard seed 2000 years ago, as well as the largest mustard tree that exists presently. It is more a matter of your PERCEPTION of the Church that is not the same. People’s perceptions are influenced by their experiences and education (or lack of it) and therefore, are biased.

What you don’t seem to realize is that the Catholic Church teaches that all who have been born again are members of tbe One, True Church, founded by Christ.

It is good that you know this. It means you are more likely to benefit from education. If you come to find that your education on history was relative, you will realize it isincomplete.

Well, ok, Esdra. I will leave you to your personal convictions. It seems that we will be able to do very little to enrich you here. People that already have their minds made up about something are not usually open to learning that they may be mistaken.

No, Esda, they don’t . They, like yourself, teach according to their PERCEPTION of the Bible, which is limited and which is, especially in the case of Modern American Evagelicals, quite a departure from what the A’postles believed and taught.

From the point of view of the Apostolic Churches, The whole of Protestantism is “another gospel”, because all of it departs from that which was committed to the Church by the Apostles. Some have retained much more of the faith, others less. It is a matter of degree.

“everyone around” you are individuals with their own (and possibly erroneous) opinons. The Catholic Church teaches that all are welcome. God desires that all be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the Truth. It is regrettable that the average Catholic is not familiar with the teachings of the Church. It does help to explain, however, how it is that you have so many misunderstandings about the Catholic faith.

I am glad that you found one Catholic who seems to be apprised of the teachings of the Church. Not sure that Anabaptists still don’t qualify as a sect, however.

Rejecting heresy is one thing, rejecting PEOPLE is another! Of course we have to reject heresies! It is our duty. However, we don’t have to reject the PEOPLE just because they have unwittingly embraced heresy.

I would not bother to attempt to evangelize a person who claims they are Christian. What would be the point?

I am sorry that you believe this. What you are saying is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can read the “whole bible” and then, according to what they THINK it means, believe it and they are not in heresy. Unfortunately, it is this kind of thinking that has spawned and perpetuates the majority of heresies.

This does not count for much, since your standard is yourself and your own opinion. Of course all that don’t agree with what you believe will be considered to have fallen short of the Truth!

Well, thank you for saying so. It gives me a better perspective on your state of mind. It does cause me curiousity as to why you are here?

[SIGN]It is clear that you never had “catholic” faith, Esdra. You never took the time to explore that into which you were baptized. You will answer to God for it.

You are in a large majority who have pushed away the gift of their baptism and chosen to embrace heresies. I was among them as well, until I studied history, and realized that the Catholic Church of today is the same as Jesus founded.

[/SIGN]

Amen to that!

 

[guanophore]

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.

I wouldn’t think there was any need to “evangelize” either of you, as you are obviously Christian, to the best of your limited ability.

One of the reasons I am on CAF is to try to show the uneducated that the Catholic Church is the only true Church founded by Christ Jesus. However, if he, as you, “don’t really care”, then it would be my responsibility to shake off the dust of my shoes and move on to those who are willing to listen.

What makes you so sure that not the Catholic Church is a heresy?

I believe Jesus, who promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. When one embraces heresy, one passes through the gates of hell.

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 would hope and pray that the Lord would nto wait until I stand for judgement to let me know if this has happened!

I have read ones an interesting article in our local newspaper- There it said: “Sociologically seen there are many truths”.

I hope you take this to heart. It explains completely why you believe so strongly that the things you have embraced are “true”, even though they are a significant departure from what the Apotsles beleived and taught.

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!

Many of them are exactly the same. In fact, the Gnostics fell into the same error of Sola Scriptura that moderns have, and that is why they are repeating the same heresies.

Protestants don’t have "churches’ in the Apostolic sense of the word. But, even the ecclesial communities cannoto be given the label of heretics. The individual members of them, who have embraced heresies like Sola Scriptura cannot qualify for the term “heretic” either. In order to become a heretic, one must have first know and embraced the truth, then knowingly departed from it. These people have never had the full gospel. Most of them thing the Catholic Church “added” to the faith, because they don’t know what was subtracted by the Reformers.

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.

Clearly he does not embrace the Catholic faith.

Well, granny maybe is also not a pharisee… Well, there are only VERY few! That’s so sad.

Yes, it is very sad that there are so few people who have escaped your condemnation.

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 a reflection of your attitude that you think people falling away from the faith handed down to us by the apostles would be a “good thing”. However, it would be better to have one Catholic who embraces and practices the Apostolic faith than 100 who claim it, yet do not.

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!

I am sure you are doing your best to surround yourself with people you consider “holy” so that they can support your spiritual growth.

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!

It is called Divine Liturgy. What you felt belongs to you, and not to the faithful who are seeking reminders of their faith to keep in your homes. You have judged their hearts based upon your own perceptions.

 

[guanophore]

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

You think this nobility meant that the Bereans believed that the Word of God was confined to the Scripture?

If so, how do you reconcile that with Jn. 1:1?

In answer to your question, I know that Jesus, the eternal Word of God, is alive and well in many other ways and places, and existed before the HOly Scriptures (as they themselves testify) and He is not confined to the pages of the Book.

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”.

No, Esdra, I dont’ think you are here to learn. I do agree that you were not well catechized, but a person who “does not care” what the Church teaches is not likely to learn much.

I don’t reject the faith upon missconcetpions - in many ways I just don’t know better!

If you think about it, misconceptions are the SOURCE of not knowing any better! You have rejected things on the basis of your misconceptions, and you have those because you don’t know any better. What is regrettable is that you seem bent upon hanging on to your misperceptions because you believe they are “true”.

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 seems that you are very uninformed about the community of believers. Most of them don’t believe there is such a thing as a visible church on earth. As you progress, you will find that the notion of “invisibility” is a characteristic of the community of all believers. Since you wish to cling to your deficient notion of “church”, then I will leave you to it.

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!

Ok, Esdra. Peace be to you on your spiritual journey.

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

Yes, Esdra, they changed the doctrines, and they are still being changed. One of the main doctrines they changed is the foundation of the Church. They tried to make it “bible based”, and that was the beginning of the long road to fracturing. Jesus did not found His Church this way, and it is not the way He intended it to function.

and as the bible is the infaillable and inerrant word of God (on which we can all agree I guess)

No, Esdra. this is another of the doctrinal changes the Reformers perpetuated that has caused nothing but problems. the bible is not infallible. Infallibility is the ability to act without error. Scripture does not have this quality, and by attempting to assigne qualities to it that were not right, errors and divisions have occurrred.

those parts of the doctrine they rejected (infaillability of the pope etc) were eliminated by the Holy Ghost.

Can you show me where you found this in your infallible bible?

It is a good example of an extrabiblical tradition of men.

 God wanted the CC to reform.

No, Esdra. The Bride of Christ is pure and holy. She does not need reform, because she has already been purified by Christ.

Men, however, are always in need of reform. I will agree with you that there were Catholic men in need of reform. The problem was attempting to “reform” the teachings of Jesus, which did not need to be done.

And they also did start to do so because of the reformers. But since Vaticanum II they stopped to reform.

I sense a plethora of hot gasses emanating from a dark region that is customarily used for the elimination of solids.

And I think this isn’t the Will of God. (Reforms that need to be taken is: femal ordination, no celibacy etc)

Esdra, has it ever occurred to you that, if Jesus wanted to ordain women, He would have? Or that, if he did not think celibacy was a good idea, He would have gotten married and had children?

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!)

Happy trails, young seeker.

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”?

Yes. I think it happens all the time. Do you think the father did not want the prodigal son to return home, just because he let him leave?

Truth is revealed by God into your heard.

In that case, it is no wonder I have so much trouble grasping it! I have never been to the East Indian Ocean!

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”).

Well, looks like your stay here is going to be rather brief, Esdra. Perhaps you will be able to return when your “heard” matures a bit?

 

[guanophore]

I do accept the CC as a Christian Church, but it has among many truths, also some other, “untrue” elements in it.

You perceive it this way because you really don’t understand what the Church believes and teaches, and you have a deficient notion of Church. It is impossible for the Church to embrace or teach errors.

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?]”

This is quite true. And your experience bears this out. People can claim to have the Truth, but if they are not living according to it, what good is that to themselves, or anyone else.

However, your conclusion is that you would stop walking after Jesus because Judas betrayed Him. It makes no sense to decide not to follow the truth just because the man next to you fails to do so, or to claim that Jesus is not a valid source of truth because Judas did not embrace what He taught.
Esdra;6767037:

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!

You are doing the best you can, within the limitations that you have.

Again: What is truth?

It is Jesus, and what he entrusted to HIs Apostles.

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”)

The difference is that your “truth” is based upon your own perceptions, while mine is based upon the Divine protection given by God.

Why should I want to be a Catholic? I know what I believe and I know that it is true.

At some point in your life, you may be interested in knowing and embracing the fullness of the truth. When you are, you will know where to go .

Please don’t try to evangelize me to the Catholic faith!

Christians don’t need to be evangelized, but catechized. If you want to be on CAF, attempts will be made to catechize you . That is why we are here. It would be sinful for us to allow you to persist in your ignorance without making an attempt to help you undersatnd that there is more to the faith of the Apostles.

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!

Clearly not. You are not ready for any such leap of faith.

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)

No, Esdra, this is not true. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and he rules it centrally from Himself. Schisms exist because people depart from the Truth.

Furthermore, God is perfectly able (and has accomplished) the preservation of the Apostolic faith in spite of a lack of contact with a central authority. Anyone who studies the history of the Eastern Church will see this clearly.

• 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.

It is curious to read this from you, since you do neither. You believe that you do, because you have imposed your own perceptions upon the creed and the Scripture, but you don’t understand them as they were written

He didn’t like the pharisees, didn’t he?

He loved them enought to die for them, so they could have eternal life.

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.

The Jewish religion is a type and a shadow of the New covenant. Jesus really did mean for the Apsostles to administer the Church. If he did not, how is it that they misunderstood this? How was it that Jesus was so weak and disinterested after He spoke to the Churches in Revelation that he lost his ability to communicate that He did not mean for the Apsotles to administer the Church? If they misunderstood, don’t you think He could have corrected them? What kind of mamby pamby Jesus do you have!?

 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.

Well, God forbid you should contaminate yourself by fraternizing with bigots. Jesus surely would do no such thing.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I guess they are in good company. People said the same about the Apostles and the early church.

I could also see why you would be more concerned about your reputation than learning about the faith they espouse.

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;…

Why should you? why not just go the direction of the “force” … Swim along with everyone else, and try to fit in with the crowd! Who wants to be thought of as a fanatic or mentally ill? Such stigma! instead, find a faith community where no one in the community is thought of in this terrible light.

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?

Indeed I do. I had the same one when I was your age.

That’s not a failure in logic!

It is Esdra. To abandon a form of believe based upon the behavior of people who reject it does not make any sense. IT is 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!!

I agree with you that it is better to walk the walk. Certainly you are to be commended for looking for a community of people that does so. As long as they are not fanatics and mentally ill, that is.

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).

Yes, sounds like he has a lot of issues to work out. I would caution you about drawing conclusions based upon other people’s opinions. Consider doing some research yourself.

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.

You are suffering from more errors in logic here, Esdra. The Church is not at librerty to “change things” that Jesus set forth. We have the responsibliity to preserve what was handed down to us by the Apostles. this is the docrtrine of the faith.

The other problem you are having is that you seem to think a person who violates his sacred vow will be less likely to do so if they take a different vow. Don’t you know that teh vast majoirty of pedophiles are married heterosexuals?

To summerize, it has to become more like the Anglican Church or, even better, the Old Catholic Church/Utrecht!

Well, I can assure you that the Catholic Church will never depart from the Teachings of Jesus in order to accomodate you, so I hope that you are happen in the ecclesial community you have chosen.