Trent Horn - Does it matter which Christian denomination you belong to?

[JMM1957]

Strike the" your view of " part out and you got my belief , find a church that teaches the Gospel and administers the sacraments , instead of choosing a church that out of pride and arrogance claims to be infallible and has a highly questionable link to the apostolic teaching .

Is it pride and arrogance? Was Paul full of pride and arrogance when he said this, “I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!” Gal. 1:6-9.

Sounds to me like Paul was very confident in the infallibility of the gospel he was preaching, don’t you think? Was Paul the last in the chain of infallible gospel teachers?

 

[CompSciGuy]

would it really matter…given the ecumenical nature of V-2 …and we all worship one God mentality…alongwith all religions have something to offer…wouldn’t it be a matter of from which prespective one approaches the matter…certainly I believe that we have the fullness of the faith and I could never imagine being anything but Roman Catholic…

Yes it matters! Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Vatican II came to “correct” the “mistakes” of the past church. The past church and the present church are the same church. And in both the past and the present, the Catholic Church has affirmed the necessity of this one universal Church for salvation. From the Catechism:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

So it does matter what denomination you belong to. Those who are saved and are not members of the Catholic Church are saved by an extraordinary grace because God had judged that they had lived their lives as best they could with what they had and that it was not their fault that they are ignorant of the Church and the gospel:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

*This *is the teaching of Vatican II and of the Church. Please read it carefully. It does not, I repeat, does NOT say that all religions are the same, that denomination doesn’t matter, or that everyone is going to heaven. Let’s not interpret it that way.

 

[zz912]

We believe that the church throughout history has taught the gospel , however , at times it has taught it purely, at others it still taught the gospel but mixed with error , the time of the reformation was one such time , and the Refomers brought the church back to teaching pure doctrine .

There are two HUGE problems with this claim.

First: Spell out exactly what error was taught? And when did it first begin being taught? You also need to show where the “pure doctrine” was taught before the error was started.

Second: You are classifying the “reformers” as a single, unified group. This is false, and proves your point false. Your claim simply cannot be true. Because it is arguing that the “reformers” brought the church back to a SINGLE, “pure doctrine”. This is demonstrably false. They did not teach ONE doctrine. They taught many different doctrines.

I hope you truly do ponder how this second point I showed proves your argument cannot be true.

 

[zz912]

Let’s debate that on another thread , suffice it to say that they taught what WAS taught in the early church and the scriptures.

Please cite some of this. Pick a topic and show us where it was taught, and then show us when and where the error began.

 

[zz912]

The Catholic Church is only one small part of “his church” along with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist Church, the American Baptist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Church of England, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and all the other Christian denominations.

This can’t possibly be true. Jesus built ONE Church. And St. Paul explicitly says there is ONE faith. These examples all teach different faiths.

 

[zz912]

Jesus is the groom of the church not the church itself .

“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?”

 

[zz912]

Really think this is the wrong question. **The bible tells us **that the only way to be saved and attain heaven is through Jesus Christ who fully paid for our sins, past present, and future. Jesus offers us the free gift of salvation which we must accept by confessing our sins before God, asking God for forgiveness, and then you must repent by transforming your old life into one that will follow the plan God has for you. Without repentence and walking with Jesus according to His plan for you, you will never seen heaven. So it matters very little what denomination you are if you do not follow these steps. And we all know that not everyone singing “Amazing Grace” is going to be saved. For some who knock on the door, Jesus will say “he never knew you”. Most will perish as broad is the road and narrow is the gate that only a few will pass.

Who tells you that the Bible is God’s word?

 

[JMM1957]

We believe that **the church **throughout history has taught the gospel , however , at times it has taught it purely, at others it still taught the gospel but mixed with error , the time of the reformation was one such time , and the Refomers brought the church back to teaching pure doctrine .

You need to define “the church”, because there have been false teachers (heretics and heresies) present from the very beginning of Apostolic times. When Jesus said “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”, what church was he speaking of?

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus is the groom of the church not the church itself .

Jesus is the Head. The Church is His Body.

Without the Church, all you have is a Head, without any Body to convey what the Head is thinking.

Without the Church, one is basically decapitating Christ.

 

[JMM1957]

Jesus is the groom of the church not the church itself .

Jesus is the bridegroom, the Head of the Church, and the Church is the bride of Christ, His Body. The Church and Christ are inseparable. While the Church is on its earthly journey, we have the Holy Spirit in our company to guide us, and at the end of time the Church, the bride, will be eternally joined to the bridegroom, Christ, in the ultimate wedding ceremony.

 

[Tommy999]

There are two HUGE problems with this claim.

First: Spell out exactly what error was taught? And when did it first begin being taught? You also need to show where the “pure doctrine” was taught before the error was started.

Second: You are classifying the “reformers” as a single, unified group. This is false, and proves your point false. Your claim simply cannot be true. Because it is arguing that the “reformers” brought the church back to a SINGLE, “pure doctrine”. This is demonstrably false. They did not teach ONE doctrine. They taught many different doctrines.

I hope you truly do ponder how this second point I showed proves your argument cannot be true.

This may be slightly off topic, but I think the following is an example of error. The caveat is that I saw it on a news documentary show on Fox News. If there is another explanation for it that disproves what I am saying, let me know because I will stand corrected if I inadvertently misrepresented something.

My wife and I are conservative evangelical Christians. I want to attend a more traditional church than the one we currently attend and am considering Catholicism. However, my wife is very anti-Catholic, but she became a little more open to it out of respect to my interest and from what she saw of Pope Francis during his US visit. She likes him a lot, as do I.

We sat down a few weeks ago and saw a TV program called *‘Losing Faith In America’ *or something to that effect with Bill Hemmer on Fox News around the same time of Pope’s visit to the US.

The program focused on different Christian denominations and how Christianity is losing adherents in the US. It also spent a significant amount of time on the issue of homosexuality. It focused on a Catholic church in New York City called St Paul the Apostle and a program they have called outatstpaul.org/.

My first thought was that it was an outreach to the LGBT community to help point them to Christ. In other words, “hate the sin but love the sinner” kind of program, which we would welcome and embrace as the proper Christian thing to do.

However, as the program progressed, it became apparent that not only was there a portion of that parish that was openly gay – and I think they said the priest was, too --, but they were proud to be gay and lesbian Catholics and were open about their sexuality and their membership in the Catholic Church, along with taking the sacraments.

That was a ‘fingernails across the chalkboard’ moment for especially my wife, and I was totally caught off-guard by this. I couldn’t defend it. I kept telling her that I didn’t think Catholicism approves of homosexual behavior and that it was an anomaly, but that did more to undo my efforts to portray Catholicism in a positive traditional and conservative light than anything I could think of. She looked at me with one of those, "…and you’re thinking of joining *that kind of church *?

It kind of put things back to ‘square one’ with her and it came across to me as Catholicism’s toleration of error if not subtle acceptance of a sinful lifestyle. I realize that some mainline Protestant denominations do likewise, but we don’t belong to such a liberal denomination as that. It was big turn-off to us and came across as tolerance of error if the TV program accurately portrayed what was happening correctly.

 

[PRmerger]

This may be slightly off topic, but I think the following is an example of error. The caveat is that I saw it on a news documentary show on Fox News. If there is another explanation for it that disproves what I am saying, let me know because I will stand corrected if I inadvertently misrepresented something.

My wife and I are conservative evangelical Christians. I want to attend a more traditional church than the one we currently attend and am considering Catholicism. However, my wife is very anti-Catholic, but she became a little more open to it out of respect to my interest and from what she saw of Pope Francis during his US visit. She likes him a lot, as do I.

We sat down a few weeks ago and saw a TV program called *‘Losing Faith In America’ *or something to that effect with Bill Hemmer on Fox News around the same time of Pope’s visit to the US.

The program focused on different Christian denominations and how Christianity is losing adherents in the US. It also spent a significant amount of time on the issue of homosexuality. It focused on a Catholic church in New York City called St Paul the Apostle and a program they have called outatstpaul.org/.

My first thought was that it was an outreach to the LGBT community to help point them to Christ. In other words, “hate the sin but love the sinner” kind of program, which we would welcome and embrace as the proper Christian thing to do.

However, as the program progressed, it became apparent that not only was there a portion of that parish that was openly gay – and I think they said the priest was, too --, but they were proud to be gay and lesbian Catholics and were open about their sexuality and their membership in the Catholic Church, along with taking the sacraments.

That was a ‘fingernails across the chalkboard’ moment for especially my wife, and I was totally caught off-guard by this. I couldn’t defend it. I kept telling her that I didn’t think Catholicism approves of homosexual behavior and that it was an anomaly, but that did more to undo my efforts to portray Catholicism in a positive traditional and conservative light than anything I could think of. She looked at me with one of those, "…and you’re thinking of joining *that kind of church *?

It kind of put things back to ‘square one’ with her and it came across to me as Catholicism’s toleration of error if not subtle acceptance of a sinful lifestyle. I realize that some mainline Protestant denominations do likewise, but we don’t belong to such a liberal denomination as that. It was big turn-off to us and came across as tolerance of error if the TV program accurately portrayed what was happening correctly.

You are always going to find sinners in our Church, Tommy. And folks who have divorced themselves from the teachings of Christ and His Church.

So rather than judge whether you should join the CC based on how its members act, and what they do, assess what the teachings actually ARE.

The best place to look for what the sure norm of the faith is the Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Tommy999]

You are always going to find sinners in our Church, Tommy. And folks who have divorced themselves from the teachings of Christ and His Church.

So rather than judge whether you should join the CC based on how its members act, and what they do, assess what the teachings actually ARE.

The best place to look for what the sure norm of the faith is the Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Hi PRmerger,
Understood. By the way, I have viewed portions of the Catechism (haven’t read all of it yet) and believe it doesn’t condone homosexual behavior. This makes it all the more puzzling to me when I see such things. I realize the Catholic Church is huge and can’t be everywhere at once (over 1.2 billion people and counting) but I thought it policed itself a little more aggressively than that.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger,
I have viewed portions of the Catechism (haven’t read all of it yet) and believe it doesn’t condone homosexual behavior. This makes it all the more puzzling to me when I see such things. I realize the Catholic Church is huge and can’t be everywhere at once (over 1.2 billion people and counting) but I thought it policed itself a little more aggressively than that.

Not sure why you would be puzzled by this.

The CC can’t even get her flock to agree not to use birth control, so why would you think she could police gay and lesbian Catholics into conforming to the Church’s teaching?

And let’s make this parallel: let’s say there’s a Muslim who’s interested in Christianity. He says, “Doesn’t your religion say that Paul’s epistles are inspired? Well, then why is this group saying that they’re Satanic? That’s why I think Christianity is hogwash!”

Wouldn’t you tell this Muslim: don’t go by what some folks say who’ve divorced themselves from the teachings. Go by what Christianity actually professes!

Yes?

 

[JMM1957]

Hi PRmerger,
I have viewed portions of the Catechism (haven’t read all of it yet) and believe it doesn’t condone homosexual behavior. This makes it all the more puzzling to me when I see such things. I realize the Catholic Church is huge and can’t be everywhere at once (over 1.2 billion people and counting) but I thought it policed itself a little more aggressively than that.

It is an outreach program, the parish has a special ministry towards LG’s. Celibacy between unmarried persons is stressed, whether gay or straight, this has always been Church teaching. You are correct about what the Catechism says concerning practicing homosexual behavior. These people need Christ just as much as any other person, and everyone has to be accepted equally as human beings. As uncomfortable as it may seem to some, integration of these people into the Church community is what can change hearts and put them on the path to living as Christ commanded.

 

[Tommy999]

Not sure why you would be puzzled by this.

The CC can’t even get her flock to agree not to use birth control, so why would you think she could police gay and lesbian Catholics into conforming to the Church’s teaching?

And let’s make this parallel: let’s say there’s a Muslim who’s interested in Christianity. He says, “Doesn’t your religion say that Paul’s epistles are inspired? Well, then why is this group saying that they’re Satanic? That’s why I think Christianity is hogwash!”

Wouldn’t you tell this Muslim: don’t go by what some folks say who’ve divorced themselves from the teachings. Go by what Christianity actually professes!

Yes?

I think I understand what you are saying, but my point is a different one, or at least I think it is. To me, one of the strong points of Catholicism is the hierarchical structure from the Pope on down – it kind of reminds me of the military. When a leader doesn’t conform, his higher leadership takes him aside and talks to him about it, corrects him, and if needed, disciplines him if he goes against orders (or teachings of the Church, in this case).

When there is a priest of a fairly large Catholic parish who openly goes against Catholic teaching (as appears to have been the case in the Fox News piece), I would think the same thing would happen to him – either some sort of discipline or even replacing him if he does not conform to church teaching. To my knowledge, that hasn’t happened, as the website I put in a previous still appears to show.

The parish priest I’m referring to is not just a normal parishioner who disagrees with church teaching on something like birth control and does his own thing. What kind of witness is it to the flock when the pastor of that flock openly goes against church teaching? That is my concern.

 

[PRmerger]

I think I understand what you are saying, but my point is a different one, or at least I think it is. To me, one of the strong points of Catholicism is the hierarchical structure from the Pope on down – it kind of reminds me of the military. When a leader doesn’t conform, his higher leadership takes him aside and talks to him about it, corrects him, and if needed, disciplines him if he goes against orders (or teachings of the Church, in this case).

When there is a priest of a fairly large Catholic parish who openly goes against Catholic teaching (as appears to have been the case in the Fox News piece), I would think the same thing would happen to him – either some sort of discipline or even replacing him if he does not conform to church teaching. To my knowledge, that hasn’t happened, as the website I put in a previous still appears to show.

The parish priest I’m referring to is not just a normal parishioner who disagrees with church teaching on something like birth control and does his own thing. What kind of witness is it to the flock when the pastor of that flock openly goes against church teaching? That is my concern.

None of this should matter, Tommy, as far as choosing to be Catholic or not.

Either the CC is the Church Christ established, or it’s not.

Whether there’s a priest who disobeys the kerygma is irrelevant.

If you’re going to look for a church where everyone follows the kerygma, you’re going to be on an otiose search.

 

[JMM1957]

I think I understand what you are saying, but my point is a different one, or at least I think it is. To me, one of the strong points of Catholicism is the hierarchical structure from the Pope on down – it kind of reminds me of the military. When a leader doesn’t conform, his higher leadership takes him aside and talks to him about it, corrects him, and if needed, disciplines him if he goes against orders (or teachings of the Church, in this case).

When there is a priest of a fairly large Catholic parish who openly goes against Catholic teaching (as appears to have been the case in the Fox News piece), I would think the same thing would happen to him – either some sort of discipline or even replacing him if he does not conform to church teaching. To my knowledge, that hasn’t happened, as the website I put in a previous still appears to show.

The parish priest I’m referring to is not just a normal parishioner who disagrees with church teaching on something like birth control and does his own thing. What kind of witness is it to the flock when the pastor of that flock openly goes against church teaching? That is my concern.

I’m not sure I understand what the pastor has or is doing wrong here? Did I miss something?

 

[Thorolfr]

It is an outreach program, the parish has a special ministry towards LG’s. Celibacy between unmarried persons is stressed, whether gay or straight, this has always been Church teaching. You are correct about what the Catechism says concerning practicing homosexual behavior. These people need Christ just as much as any other person, and everyone has to be accepted equally as human beings. As uncomfortable as it may seem to some, integration of these people into the Church community is what can change hearts and put them on the path to living as Christ commanded.

I just looked at the video called “Owning Our Faith” at the outreach site Out at St. Paul, and it doesn’t really emphasize celibacy. In the video, they interview a transgender person (female-to-male) who gives a very moving interview:

I left the Catholic Church out of high school and I actually started to come back to the Church when I was coming out as transgender. Going to church and even going to confession for the first time in three years, that was an amazing moment for me. The priest that I talked to, he was incredibly compassionate and someone who, he admitted ‘I haven’t dealt with this before, I’ve never met someone who’s transgender, but I see you.’ He called me a brother in Christ and that was huge, that was the first time someone acknowledged me for my gender, to have that come from the Catholic Church, to have someone acknowledge me for who I am and to say ‘I love you all the same and I see who you are’, it was life saving to me.

Thank goodness there are such compassionate priests when it comes to LGBT people.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure I understand what the pastor has or is doing wrong here? Did I miss something?

I think he may be preaching that homosexuality is not disordered?