Understanding each other for Christ's sake...

[2nd_Adam]

Yes there is. There is only one Church, one Body of Christ, and that is the Catholic Church. The other denominations are our separated brothers and sisters. All those who are validly baptized are part of the Body of Christ.

Here is my modfied view of your posting:

There is only one true church, one Body of Christ. All those who are validly baptized into Christ by the Spirit are part of the Body of Christ.

I will use Scripture to support my modified version of your original post.

Unity in the Body of Christ

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. - Ephesians 4

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. - rom 6

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is correct, but the statement he’s making is almost certainly in the same spirit of “you see, we’re all one big happy spirital church”… No we’re not, they’re seperated brothers and sisters, there is schisim and it can’t just be ignored because it’s not a good thing.

Yes, there is a schism and while all the separated brothers and sisters are members of denominations founded by ordinary men, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

But there is more in common among the various Protestant sects and the Catholic Church than there is with those sects who call themselves Christian but do not have valid baptisms ~ such as the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. So while it may not be one big happy spiritual church, all of the validly baptized are part of the Body of Christ, while those that are not validly baptized are not part of that Body.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, there is a schism and while all the separated brothers and sisters are members of denominations founded by ordinary men, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

But there is more in common among the various Protestant sects and the Catholic Church than there is with those sects who call themselves Christian but do not have valid baptisms ~ such as the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. So while it may not be one big happy spiritual church, all of the validly baptized are part of the Body of Christ, while those that are not validly baptized are not part of that Body.

I guess if you go by percentage of teaching, the problem is when error starts being taught, or certain things aren’t taught because “we don’t beleive it’s in the bible”, even some things the protistant fathers themselves beleived.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I guess if you go by percentage of teaching, the problem is when error starts being taught, or certain things aren’t taught because “we don’t beleive it’s in the bible”, even some things the protistant fathers themselves beleived.

Yes, a whole lot of error started being taught a few hundred years ago.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I believe what I said was the closer I grow the Church, the more I despise Protestantism’ and explained what I meant as well.

AP, the Catholic Church is not a used car I’m trying to sell where I’m going to try and make it seem ‘attractive’ to you so you’ll buy. Now, the Catholic Church is the Truth which you can either accept or reject.

Well then maybe you can explain this for me.

How come when I read certain authors like Richard Neuhaus, Jimy Akin, and even your recent popes JP II, and Benedictus, that there is to be honest a certain attraction there.

Not an attraction of total agreement, but more like that I actually like these guys, want to read what they have to say, and give it some thought and consideration. And after reading enough of these guys I start thinking that maybe Catholicism is not that different from what I already believe and accept right now. And then there is to be honest a certain appeal of a branch of Christianity that has the historical depth that Catholicism posseses.

And then I read amateur Catholic apologists like you and others here as well as the certain dead popes that you are so fond of quoting and my spirit immediately becomes repelled by it.

And the few posters here that I actually like (for example TweetyMom) are rebuked by the righteous ones here. Go figure.

After reading enough of you and other posters like you, I end up thinking that maybe Catholicism is totally foreign to what I posses and believe right now.

It really is quite schizo to be honest. I can’t explain it.

I am sure that the explanation is that you and the other amateur Catholic apologists are giving me the pure, unadulterated Catholic truth and that everybody else whom I happen to like are just compromising. After all, you did imply that of Evangelicals and Catholics together in this thread.

Oh by the way, the original thread (the way you worded it originally) had the word Protestants (not Protestantism). It was following the rebuke of several Catholics in the thread that you changed it to Protestantism.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Well then maybe you can explain this for me.

How come when I read certain authors like Richard Neuhaus, Jimy Akin, and even your recent popes JP II, and Benedictus, that there is to be honest a certain attraction there.

Not an attraction of total agreement, but more like that I actually like these guys, want to read what they have to say, and give it some thought and consideration. And after reading enough of these guys I start thinking that maybe Catholicism is not that different from what I already believe and accept right now. And then there is to be honest a certain appeal of a branch of Christianity that has the historical depth that Catholicism posseses.

And then I read amateur Catholic apologists like you and others here as well as the certain dead popes that you are so fond of quoting and my spirit immediately becomes repelled by it.

And the few posters here that I actually like (for example TweetyMom) are rebuked by the righteous ones here. Go figure.

After reading enough of you and other posters like you, I end up thinking that maybe Catholicism is totally foreign to what I posses and believe right now.

It really is quite schizo to be honest. I can’t explain it.

I am sure that the explanation is that you and the other amateur Catholic apologists are giving me the pure, unadulterated Catholic truth and that everybody else whom I happen to like are just compromising.

Oh by the way, the original thread (the way you worded it originally) had the word Protestants (not Protestantism). It was following the rebuke of several Catholics in the thread that you changed it to Protestantism.

There is a remnant chosen by grace in the Catholic Church. All branches of Christianity is made up of sheep and goats.

 

[tweetymom]

TweetyMom is a sweetheart. If more Catholics were like her, your faith actually might be attractive to me.

However, from what I see on these boards, your faith predominantly is the type to attack TweetyMom. Too bad.

Thank youfor saying what you did. I do love and respect all people and their religion. I will never rebuke someone for their belief in God. I knoe that Jesus gave us a great commandement To love one another. I try to live that,even if sometimes I fail on a lot of other things I shoukd do. God Bless you on your journey with our Lord, whatever Church you go to.

 

[tweetymom]

TweetyMom is a true Christian who is my dear sister in Christ!!!

Amen to you my Brother in Christ.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Acts 11:26

…and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

The Apostles and early Christians were neither Catholic nor Protestant. They were Christians… disciples of Jesus Christ. Peter, Mary, and James were not Catholic. And Paul was not Protestant. They were simply sinners redeemned by the blood of Christ and adopted into the family of God based on what Christ did on their behalf. I find it insightful how our flesh wants to make our particular brand of Christianity superior than the next person’s brand of Christianity. Is Christ divided?

It’s not about shouting “my faith is better.”

It’s about shouting “this is the truth!”

I understand this doesn’t make sense for you, since you have stated multiple times that you believe no Christian or church has preserved all the truth.

But as Catholics, we believe that God is so powerful that He is able to preserve His Truth through both oral and written tradition thousands of years - so that we can know the truth and the truth can set us free.

:heart" Love is Patient

 

[Pug]

Well, that’s a great testimony for me in my understanding of the remnant chosen by grace. The true body of Christ is universal indeed.

It is interesting to me that you use the word remnant in the context of the body of Christ (or maybe the universal Church). So, being me, I thought about it. That word brings to mind the historical remnant that the prophets said would come back from Babylonia. It also can’t help but bring to mind the central section of Romans (uh, 9-11). That is where you must be thinking of, I imagine, on account of your use of the word grace. I mostly associate that Romans verse with Jews (not gentiles) who are faithful, like the 7000 Israelites who did not bow to Baal.

Are you viewing it as like from Hebrews how the faithful are like Abraham and all those people of faith who were sojourners/aliens in a strange land, and that it is in heaven that we finally get to our city/home, and all the elect will be gathered together from everywhere into the universal Church together there with Christ? I understand that idea.

Or were you trying to bring to mind the parable of the wheat and the tares, the current state of the Church? And you see passages like the following as like the wheat and the tares: *Jer 3:14 ‘Return, O faithless sons,’ declares the LORD; ‘For I am a master to you, And I will take you one from a city and two from a family, And I will bring you to Zion.’ *So the remnant for you is like the wheat in the wheat and the tares?

 

[guanophore]

Sure am glad that you are so smart to explain what I meant I never said or implied what you are saying,but oh well thank you for your judgement call.

Just so long as you are clear about how it comes across.

 

[guanophore]

This is where I believe the Catholic Church is wrong.

This doesn’t mean much, since it is clear that you don’t understand what is taught.

  I have no idea how the Catholic Church can say that Muslims, Hindus, Athesists, and other non-believers can be united to Christ.

You said yourself that believers are mixed with the unbelievers. Who are you to judge where a person’s heart is before God? The Apostles taugth that those who do not know God are judged by their own conscience.

Jesus also taught “he who is not against me is for me” and “he who does a mighty work in my name will not be able to soon speak evil of me”. Only God sees their hearts. To judge someone because of their external religious affiliation is an error that you yourself have condemned.

It seems you agree with the official Catholic teaching on non-Christians by your post.

If I did not, it would be disingenuous of me to call myself Catholic. This is my critique of Tweety. She claims to be Catholic, but does not espouse the teachings of the Church.

 It's not that my view is too small of God.  My view is according to the revealed will of God.  Christ and Him crucified is what unites us to Christ.

Yes. this is the Catholic faith.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - Jesus

Jesus Is Equal with God

This is Catholic.

 Acts 11:26

…and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

The Apostles and early Christians were neither Catholic nor Protestant. They were Christians… disciples of Jesus Christ.

When you are ready to study history, 2nd, you will discover that the early Christians were all Catholic. There were no Christian disciples of Christ that were not Catholic. Others were called heretics.

Peter, Mary, and James were not Catholic.

Yes, they were. They held to the One Faith, and were members of the One Church, which is Catholic.

And Paul was not Protestant.

Definitely not!

They were simply sinners redeemned by the blood of Christ and adopted into the family of God based on what Christ did on their behalf. I find it insightful how our flesh wants to make our particular brand of Christianity superior than the next person’s brand of Christianity.

the Family of God was Catholic for 1500 years, 2nd. I agree that it is the flesh that has divided the body. The blame for this is on both sides. The One Church founded by Christ is not a “brand”. It is superior because He founded it, and He preserves it. It has nothing to do with the fallible humans attached to it.

TweetyMom is a sweetheart.

Indeed she is, God bless her soul!

If more Catholics were like her, your faith actually might be attractive to me.

Just as well, then. the Truth is not defined by sweetness, though it can be sweet. It can also be bitter. Pretending to espouse the Truth when one does not is not really a good method of attraction. It only attracts superficially an without authenticity.

However, from what I see on these boards, your faith predominantly is the type to attack TweetyMom. Too bad.

I do not attack Tweety. I take issue with her expressions, and the fact that she claims to be Catholic, and holds to a Protestant theology.

When I read the best Catholic authors, like those of Evangelicals and Catholics together and some apologists like Jimmy Akin, I get the impression that the gaps on other theological issues are not as big as made out to be.

However when I read some amateur Catholic apologists here, I get other impressions.

But I will assume for now that the Catholic authors and writers that I actually like are more representative of Catholicism than some amateur Catholic apologists here who like spouting forth venom.

Maybe that is why we are “amateurs”, and not out publishing books?

 

[guanophore]

There is great tension on both sides.  Protestants can call for unity with Catholics, but cannot sell out the Protestant Reformers, a forensic justification through imputation, and penal substitution which are essential doctrines from my perspective.

What good is a “call to unity” when one insists on clinging to doctrines that depart from the Apostolic Teaching?

However, we need to at least attempt to unify the body of Christ.

Really? Why?

I don’t think it is our part to “unify the body”. On the contrary, it seems clear to me that unity is brought about by God, and is a consequence of remaining in the Truth. It is our part to preserve the unity in the bond of peace that has been created by God, in 'Truth. This is why true unity cannot exist as long as there is a departure from what the Apostles taught. To the extent that modern denominations depart from it, there will always be disunity. The further the departure, the greater the disunity.

I believe that is the purpose of ECT 1 and ECT II, acknowledging our differences and unity. It’s a juggling act which we must attempt to do. :juggle::juggle::juggle:

Well, have fun with your juggling. Apparently it serves at least to entertain you. You also accused Catholics of “juggling” Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, which we do not. the Faith is One, as seamless once for all deposit.

That’s not a compromise. In those terms, you will eliminate Protestantism which will never happen on this side of glory. ECT 1 and ECT II never called for a submission to the Bishop of Rome as their vicar.

You are right. But Truth does not admit any compromise.

Yes, true unity will eliminate Protestantism. There will be nothing to “protest” as we will be in agreement. We will be in one accord, one heart, one mind, just as the Apostles taught.

No, ECT do not call for submission to the Bishop of Rome. However, Jesus was clear that there will be One Flock,and One Shepherd. He clearly charged Peter with the responsibility to care for the flock, and feed the sheep. To say this will not happen “this side of glory” is to diminish the power of the HS, or to say that men’s self will is stronger than His grace.

That will never happen. The Protestant Reformation was through divine providence according to the will of God, and His glorious gospel. Happy Reformation Day brother (Oct 31) in advance!

It is not appropriate for you to determine that what God wills to happen will not. I know you have said on other threads that you speak for God, but we do not accep this.

No division and separation is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, nor is it the will of God. Celebrating divisions and wounds in the One Body of Christ is to celebrate wrongdoing, and rubs salt in the wounds.
"crazzeto:

We are not God, we can not change the truth of God. All we can do is alter our selves to closely (as possible) conform to the truth of God.

That’s simply your opinion my brother.

No, 2nd. It is eternal truth. You are not God,and it is not up to you to define the Truth of God.Sometimes your hubris is actually astonishing.

God is in no way dependent on the Catholic Church.

True. He chose to work through the Catholic Church. He chose to found that Church upon the Apostles and Prophets (all Catholic) and to manifest Himself to the world through them. He could have done it another way.

And, I am not saying that God used the Catholic Church to give us the Bible either.

No, but when you are ready to accept this simple historical truth, the purpose of unity will be served by your acceptance. At that point, we can also begin some discussions about the content.

You can post that the Catholic Church has the Fullness of Truth for the next 500 years, but it’s only the Catholic verison of the historic Christian Faith.

Yes. We have been commanded by the Apostles to hold fast to that which was delivered to us. It is our obligation to maintain and proclaim this version of the historic Christian faith. Modern innovations that have cropped up since the Reformation represent a significant departure from that fullness of Truth.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I believe the road to understanding begins by dropping all the preconcieved false teachings of the Catholic Faith, prejudiced views of the Magisterium and Catholic Faith that were taught to protestants and non catholics from a bias misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith with already preconieved negative misunderstandings and false opinions of the Cathoilc faith. Un learn all these negative bias and misunderstandings of the Catholic faith and then learn from the Catholic Church what she has taught, believed and practiced these past 2000 years since the resurrection, then understanding can begin.

What I have found in this understanding approach, is that when facts, Truth present themselves from both a biblical and historical view, I find that the prejudices run so deep that they non catholics and protestants become blind to the Truth presented before them.

The greatest understanding comes when one accepts the difference between God’s will and man’s own will. The question should be asked? Do I follow the Church Jesus built upon Peter and the apostles since the first century? or do I follow a Church body of believers founded by a Man or Woman? Once this understanding is reached, now we can move on to a dialogue of Truth.

 

[nsper7]

How come when I read certain authors like Richard Neuhaus, Jimy Akin, and even your recent popes JP II, and Benedictus, that there is to be honest a certain attraction there.

Remember that Fr. Neuhaus was a Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism and became a Priest. I’m sure he would say that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth–otherwise, why did he go to all that trouble and convert. Jimmy Akin and Pope John Paul II would tell you that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of the Truth. I would assume Benedictus would agree as well.

Remember, I have never denied that Protestants who are validly Baptized are connected, albeit imperfectly, to the Catholic Church. Neither have I questioned the Salvation of Protestants–I would hope for the Salvation of all people. This IS a Catholic forum though and we are discussing matters of faith and there is bound to be contention.

Not an attraction of total agreement, but more like that I actually like these guys, want to read what they have to say, and give it some thought and consideration. And after reading enough of these guys I start thinking that maybe Catholicism is not that different from what I already believe and accept right now. And then there is to be honest a certain appeal of a branch of Christianity that has the historical depth that Catholicism posseses.

If the reason these people attract you to Catholicism is because they are ‘nice’ and not because they speak the Truth, then maybe it’s a good thing you’re not Catholic. We have enough problems already with people who are attracted inappropriately to the Church and they muddle things up. If a person wishes to be Catholic, it should be because they firmly believe that the the Church possesses the fullness of Truth on faith and morals and was founded by Jesus Christ Himself on the Rock of St. Peter. If you’re reason for joining is because you think some Catholics are ‘nice’ that shall be a foundation of sand in the end because you can find ‘nice’ people in all faiths, but only the fullness of Truth in Catholicism.

And then I read amateur Catholic apologists like you and others here as well as the certain dead popes that you are so fond of quoting and my spirit immediately becomes repelled by it.

Well, if you are unwilling to accept the Magesterium, then maybe you should not be Catholic then. Like I said, I’m not selling a used car here. Either you accept the Catholic Church as the fullness of Truth or you don’t, but I’m not going to try and deny elements of our doctrines, disciplines and teachings just to get you to ‘buy’.

And the few posters here that I actually like (for example TweetyMom) are rebuked by the righteous ones here. Go figure.

I pointed what St. Pius IX had to say in regards to these issues. Sorry, I am going to take St. Pius IX’s words over those of tweetymom or anyone else here for that matter.

After reading enough of you and other posters like you, I end up thinking that maybe Catholicism is totally foreign to what I posses and believe right now.

You’re probably right. You sound like you want to basically believe what you want regardless of what is Truth or not. You do not want acknowledge that, yes, you can be wrong, but the Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I am sure that the explanation is that you and the other amateur Catholic apologists are giving me the pure, unadulterated Catholic truth and that everybody else whom I happen to like are just compromising. After all, you did imply that of Evangelicals and Catholics together in this thread.

The explanation is that I don’t know who ECT is, but I do know what the Church has taught. The fact that a certain number of Catholic Priests are suddenly supporting something does not mean that the Church is fully going along.

Oh by the way, the original thread (the way you worded it originally) had the word Protestants (not Protestantism). It was following the rebuke of several Catholics in the thread that you changed it to Protestantism.

Well, I made a mistake there. I used the wrong word and conveyed a more personal animosity as opposed to a disdain for falsehood and the results of such falsehood. I have never claimed to be infallible or impeccable.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Remember that Fr. Neuhaus was a Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism and became a Priest. I’m sure he would say that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth–otherwise, why did he go to all that trouble and convert. Jimmy Akin and Pope John Paul II would tell you that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of the Truth. I would assume Benedictus would agree as well.

I have no doubt that they believe that. I respectfully disagree.

If the reason these people attract you to Catholicism is because they are ‘nice’ and not because they speak the Truth, then maybe it’s a good thing you’re not Catholic. We have enough problems already with people who are attracted inappropriately to the Church and they muddle things up. If a person wishes to be Catholic, it should be because they firmly believe that the the Church possesses the fullness of Truth on faith and morals and was founded by Jesus Christ Himself on the Rock of St. Peter. If you’re reason for joining is because you think some Catholics are ‘nice’ that shall be a foundation of sand in the end because you can find ‘nice’ people in all faiths, but only the fullness of Truth in Catholicism.

The reason why I like them is
(1) They treat my faith with respect and are not condescending to me as an Evangelical.
(2) They understand my faith and are able to present their faith using terms and language that I can relate to. As such, they make Catholicism sound as though it is not that far different from what I believe.
(3) They character reflect Christian love (if that is what you mean by ‘nice’)

All of these three points contrast with many if not most amateur Catholic apologists here.

I can accept point #2 as a function of being amateur. Points #1 and #3 relate to basic Christian conduct.

Well, if you are unwilling to accept the Magesterium, then maybe you should not be Catholic then. Like I said, I’m not selling a used car here. Either you accept the Catholic Church as the fullness of Truth or you don’t, but I’m not going to try and deny elements of our doctrines, disciplines and teachings just to get you to ‘buy’.

I have no interest in being Catholic.

Now maybe if I were to be persuaded that your denomination is in fact “The Church” and that the relationship in Gods eyes between the Catholics and everybody else is a superior to inferior relationship, well maybe then I can revisit that interest.

So far the best of your apologists leave me unconvinced. Hint, I do not go on anybody’s say so.

The explanation is that I don’t know who ECT is, but I do know what the Church has taught. The fact that a certain number of Catholic Priests are suddenly supporting something does not mean that the Church is fully going along.

Google Evangelicals Catholics Together. That is where you will find the name of Neuhaus.

Well, I made a mistake there. I used the wrong word and conveyed a more personal animosity as opposed to a disdain for falsehood and the results of such falsehood. I have never claimed to be infallible or impeccable.

OK, I will accept that.

 

[2nd_Adam]

It is interesting to me that you use the word remnant in the context of the body of Christ (or maybe the universal Church). So, being me, I thought about it. That word brings to mind the historical remnant that the prophets said would come back from Babylonia. It also can’t help but bring to mind the central section of Romans (uh, 9-11). That is where you must be thinking of, I imagine, on account of your use of the word grace. I mostly associate that Romans verse with Jews (not gentiles) who are faithful, like the 7000 Israelites who did not bow to Baal.

Are you viewing it as like from Hebrews how the faithful are like Abraham and all those people of faith who were sojourners/aliens in a strange land, and that it is in heaven that we finally get to our city/home, and all the elect will be gathered together from everywhere into the universal Church together there with Christ? I understand that idea.

Or were you trying to bring to mind the parable of the wheat and the tares, the current state of the Church? And you see passages like the following as like the wheat and the tares: *Jer 3:14 ‘Return, O faithless sons,’ declares the LORD; ‘For I am a master to you, And I will take you one from a city and two from a family, And I will bring you to Zion.’ *So the remnant for you is like the wheat in the wheat and the tares?

I see one big redemptive history revealed first in Genesis 3. I see that we are all born united to Adam in enmity with God. Jesus teaches that the OT Scriptures point to Him for life. There is much continunity between the OT and NT. I believe the OT Saints together with NT Saints makeup the body of Christ which is the new humanity or new creation. Therefore, the remnant is God’s chosen ones throughout redemptive history that are enternally united to Christ, calling God Abba Father based on the person and work of Jesus Christ. We worship the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob… and the promise was made to whom (study Galatians). The gospel was preach to Abraham in advance. And, who is the seed? And all the promises of God are yes in Christ!

 

[Pug]

I see one big redemptive history revealed first in Genesis 3. I see that we are all born united to Adam in enmity with God. Jesus teaches that the OT Scriptures point to Him for life. There is much continunity between the OT and NT. I believe the OT Saints together with NT Saints makeup the body of Christ which is the new humanity or new creation. Therefore, the remnant is God’s chosen ones throughout redemptive history that are enternally united to Christ, calling God Abba Father based on the person and work of Jesus Christ. We worship the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob… and the promise was made to whom (study Galatians). The gospel was preach to Abraham in advance. And, who is the seed? And all the promises of God are yes in Christ!

I totally agree with you about how the OT relates (you said continuity) to the NT. One points to the other, so we see Christ exactly where you said, in Gen 3. Catholics call that spot the protoevangelium (evangelium is like gospel) because it points to Christ.

You’re teasing me a little. I know that spot in Galatians. :nerd:You mean the spot where Paul comments about the singular seed/offspring, not plural seeds/offsprings and further on from there. It is through Christ that the promise comes. Being in Christ, we are heirs according to the promise.

I understand what you mean by “remnant” now. You mean the elect, all of them.