We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

[greggy53]

Okay lets start here. Do you believe that Paul, Peter and all of the Apostles started the Catholic CHurch?

No, Jesus began the Catholic Church. He is the head of the Church.

 

[motstraumen]

Now that they’ve discovered that there are black holes at the center of every galaxy will the theory developed in Black Hole centrism? And will I be put under house arrest and questioned by the inquisition for its suggestion?

I think the Roman Church and many others have grown in this area…I hope no one puts you under house arrest and demand you retract your theory. Faithful questioning of the theory though should be welcomed, not the cruel inquisition of our ancestors. Enjoy your contemplation!

 

[rinnie]

No, Jesus began the Catholic Church. He is the head of the Church.

You got me there

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I explained to that when the Church has what is called a Magisterim. The Teaching office. I told you that they are called to this office not self appointed, the must be called in his name. I even gave you scripture. It told you God choose who he wanted to speak for him. Rom 10:14-15. I told you he CONTINUTES to speak to us through whom he chooses.

Rinnie, I was a Catholic for many years. I know all about the Magisterium. I have no clue why you cite Rom 10:14-15. That refers to the doctrine of justification by faith. He is telling the Jews that they cannot be saved without faith in Jesus. It has zero to do with the Magisterium. I have every confidence that the Magisterium is the whole college of the bishops and as individuals united to the Bishop of Rome. Your church defines that as having come from God. Nowhere in the text of the Bible is there such a statement that is accepted by everyone that this is so. Certainly not Romans 10.

To this date the Pope said that NO women cannot be ordained. God speaks through him and the Magisterim and says No.

You start from a premise that the church never errs. Of course, it is quite difficult to study the problem when you start out with your answer, then look for “proof” to prove what you already intend to be the truth.

The point is, the standard used seems not understood. The Church speaks, and then people argue whether it speaks definitively or only personally. This has been a continuous problem. I’m sorry if the term paranoia upsets you. For reasons beyond me, RCs here feel persecuted. I know tons of Catholics, and can say none ever expresses this in the real world.

I know that what you say, you believe to be true. We all do that. It is not objectively true however, but is based on your trust in a church who tells you that they interpret things in a particular manner. This seems good and right to you, so you agree. That is fine. The trouble comes in when you attempt to tell others that their truth is not truth period. It is not yours, but yours is not mine.

What I have been trying to get across, is that at some point, the individual sinful acts or simple wrong factual statements made by members of the church, must becomes the Church’s wrong acts and statements. And there is no clear demarcation where that is. Claims are made about ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements, but still even CAtholics dispute when something is doctrine and immoveable and when it is merely the words of an individual within.

An example. I would assume that you believe that the canon as set is doctrine. Unable to be changed ? If so, then what do you explain about this? The canon was a process taking more than 100 years to agree upon, and was finally set at the C. of Nisea. Still, a number of churches, kept books not included and refused to teach from some that were. More to the point, the one book that barely was taken in was Hebrews. The vote was very close.

Does the HS, in keeping the Church from error engage in close votes? Why? Moreover, the reason Hebrews was finally allowed in was because it was thought to be written by Paul. Now, for at least 100 years, the overwhelming majority of experts knows that Paul did not write Hebrews. It remarks on things that happened after Paul’s death. It was written after his death. It is not in his writing style and doesn’t share his theology in large measure.

Is this error on the RCC for including it in the canon? Or are we to conclude that it was desired by God, and the fact that the bishops voted it in for the wrong reasons is okay? You see the difficulties? You can make the “without” error to be anything you want it to be, or not as you need it to be.

There is nothing magical in being always right. Faith is a process and a matter of growth. The God of the Jews was a more primitive vision that the God of the NT. Same God, just interpreted quite differently. We moved beyond a God who wreaked havoc on his own “good” creation. We removed the ideas of “set apart” ethnicity, we eliminated animal sacrifice. That is a maturing of faith, and there is no reason on earth why this shouldn’t continue.

Being always right gives comfort to some humans undoubted, but the lessons of the Bible suggest that we are a learning people, who grow in faith, and that is the magic, not static doctrine. Frankly we look at God and the world quite differently you and I. and I bless your beliefs. I just don’t share them.

 

[Hesychios]

You are correct, but they did hold him under house arrest. They also condemned Copernicus’ theory of heliocentricism, which had influenced Galileo.

Not only that, he was threatened with his life if he did not recant.

He was not merely uncomfortably restrained, he was threatened.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You can’t keep the 2 separate, there are sinners in the church. It cannot be changed unfortunately. But the faith and the doctrine of the church and the conduct of some are different. Are you telling me that there are not any sinners in the lutheran church? Are you telling me there has not been any scandal in the lutheran church that is contrary to what the lutherna church teaches?

And in regards to Galileo the church did acknowledge it erred with galileo and and apologised for it! They even built a library in his honour! (you see the church showed humility here as well). This doesn’t in any fact, there was not related to church doctrine or faith or morals, it was related to whether the earth was round or not and other things.

I think that I’m not being understood and that is my fault. I don’t know anything about the Lutheran church and can’t comment on it. Every single church has sinners within it obviously and none is free from having them in leadership. That is not and was not my point.

To be blunt. When you say anything about anything that changed in the Catholic church, and that is obvious, then we hear that it was only an individual who said that and it wasn’t dogma. JPII speaks about their being no just wars, and no basis for the death penalty, but that is not “dogma”. Some believe that when he said no women in ministry, that was dogma, although some disagree. Some say that the church said dogmatically that the sun revolved around the sun. Some say it did not. So to say the Church never errs is to be disingenuous. Next of course we start arguing that it only relates to faith and morals, but that is ill defined itself. Faith could well include that the earth is central to the system could it not?

My point is that it seems impossible to definitively tell when the Church speaks dogmatically and when it doesn’t. And again, as I have stated, freedom from err is not to be attained. We are only too human. To posit that the HS makes it impossible for the Church to err makes the HS look rather ineffectual and less than brilliant in its work frankly. The HS guides every christian who will listen and follow. Sometimes we can be very good at that, and sometimes were are not. To assume that somehow more specially than anyone else you CANNOT err is dangerous indeed. Quite chilling in fact.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And please show me one piece of scripture that was taught in the dogma and then the Church admitted it was wrong. Please SHOW ME!

It is impossible! And All that scripture I quoted is not my words and promised they are the promised of God.

You said it, Now you show it! Show me one thing that the Church said in the Church Dogma yesterday that the Church does not stand by today. You said it, now you show it.

Since you assumptions on what I said are so wrong, I cannot respond. You continue to claim I say what I don’t. And then you get frustrated because I “am trying to do this again and again.” You simply misread me, rather consistently. You are so sure that I am trying to rip into your Church which is ironic in one sense, and somewhat amusing from my point of view, that you spot attack where it is never intended.

I’m not quite sure even what you mean by a piece of scripture that was taught in the dogma and then the Church admitted that it was wrong. I never suggested any such thing. Perhaps, if I’m reading that right, that is exactly what needs to happen, and sadly has not.

I appreciate that you accept your church’s interpretation that whatever scripture it claims to be promises from God to it you agree with. I would expect no less of you. If I agreed with you, then I would still be a RC.

As I said, I didn’t say the Church has claimed dogma one day, and changed it the next. It precisely claims, or people within it claim that it was never doctrine in the first place. That is the point.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Spirit M. Do not have time but promise I will get back to you later. On my way to a concert. And week-ends are like 15 minutes to me. So if I do not get back tommorw promise Mon. Do not want you to think I am avoiding you. Put promise to get back to ya. To everyone have a blessed and Wonderful weekend!

 

[onenow1]

Was Martin Luthrer trying to get back to the Cathloic Church right B4 his death ,Maybe some one can answer

Hi Bill
LUTHER’s full quote:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St. Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church.”

“On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

(SOURCE: Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519 more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356)

Quote=onenow1 It would seem so anyway.

 

[rinnie]

Since you assumptions on what I said are so wrong, I cannot respond. You continue to claim I say what I don’t. And then you get frustrated because I “am trying to do this again and again.” You simply misread me, rather consistently. You are so sure that I am trying to rip into your Church which is ironic in one sense, and somewhat amusing from my point of view, that you spot attack where it is never intended.

I’m not quite sure even what you mean by a piece of scripture that was taught in the dogma and then the Church admitted that it was wrong. I never suggested any such thing. Perhaps, if I’m reading that right, that is exactly what needs to happen, and sadly has not.

I appreciate that you accept your church’s interpretation that whatever scripture it claims to be promises from God to it you agree with. I would expect no less of you. If I agreed with you, then I would still be a RC.

As I said, I didn’t say the Church has claimed dogma one day, and changed it the next. It precisely claims, or people within it claim that it was never doctrine in the first place. That is the point.

Had a second before I left to re-read what you originally wrote. ANd you are right I was wrong I did mis read it:flowers: Sorry, I had it comming to me. If you don’t want me to explain I wont. But again my mistake:blush: Take care

 

[distracted]

Look up Junia in Romans. And you never really know how to answer. I listed some Church Fathers, Jerome and Chrysotom, have you heard of them, they point to Junia as a female apostle. You said it was clear cut that Jesus didn’t chose women apostles or therefore the earliest church, ie Jerusalem. The New Testament has Junia, sometimes spelled in some manuscripts, Julia as a fellow apostle to Paul, whom he greets. Jerome and Chrysotom are witness to this Catholic Tradition. I posted your comments and commented thus on them. You said in your statement that Lutherans don’t really want this dialogue. They do as does your church. But it seems that you do not. The dialogue has been sanctioned by your Bishops, if you are not obedient to them, then according to what you and many others of your ilk have thrown at other Roman Catholics on here, is that you are not a Catholic, perhaps a Cafeteria Catholic, but not a true one. Distracted if you are going to go around and declare “tradition, nothing has changed, we’ve been around for 2000 years”, then you should understand and study that tradition. You do your cause no good, and you sully your church and its teaching of hoped for reconciliation with both the Eastern Church and the Protestant Churches. If you are a true Catholic you would, again, be obedient to the teachings of your church, and follow, yes, follow the apostolic leaders of your church, the Pope, the cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops, and the priests. That is the fundamental teaching of your church.

ad homonim…

not going there…

 

[motstraumen]

Not only that, he was threatened with his life if he did not recant.

He was not merely uncomfortably restrained, he was threatened.

True, you are right. He was informed though that the theories could be discussed, they just couldn’t be taught as fact. A bit like the discussion between creationism, evolution, and divine design…

 

[motstraumen]

ad homonim…

not going there…

This just goes to show how shallow your faith is. You’re not willing to look up Scripture, Church Fathers etc.? You are the epitomy of ad hominem. Before you speak you should have an inkling of the subject you are trying to defend.

 

[jean8]

I don’t know about that being church doctrine, it never was. It was a belief but never church doctrine.

To build a library in his honour does little good? the fact that they tried to correct this means nothing to you? Gee iw onder if lutherans really know anything about forgiveness, the fact that pope john paul II asked for forgiveness for this and other matters means little does it? That doesn;t sound like being christian to me.

louie,
I have a few passages from the Bible that you may want to consider.
God shows no favoritism. Jas.2:1, rom.2:11, Acts 10:36 Eph.6:9
God has left us to struggle with each other. while we are doing this, he commanded that we love one another. 1Jn.4:10-11, Mt.22:36, 1Jn.3:23-24 "Who loves God must also love his brother. We are brothers in Christ because we have only one Savior.

Pray about this and tell me what you think.
God bless,
jean

 

[Louie1983]

If you understood you would be obedient to your superiors and understand that our two communions have come a long way in objectively looking at history together, seeing fault on both sides. I understand fully that is what your church teaches, and guess what they agree that we believe it too. That may surprise you, but that is what the Joint Declaration says, as do other writings and speeches given by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Guess what I know the creed too, say it every Sunday. The church is built on Christ who is, who was, and ever shall be world without end, fully (bodily) present in the blessed sacrament, given to those who cling to the teaching of all the apostles, the pillars of the church, with Christ as our cornerstone

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1984/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19840302_commissione-cattolico-luterana_en.html

I completely understand and i am completely obedient to the bishops and to the church. Especially when the bishops of the catholic church and the pope encourage us to preach the faith no metter where we are. I’ve said numerous times that i’m not against unity with other churches but the catholic church will not compromise the faith, The article you posted actually confirms that as well when it says there are still areas that divide us in faith (not exact quoting but something along those lines).

 

[Louie1983]

From the quote you took from me, I don’t see where you are coming from? You have shown, as has distracted, over and over again that you assume the worst about protestant, the reformers, and especially Luther. We can go over and over who split from whom, I believe the papal bull came from Rome though, I don’t think Luther had all those seals hanging around his Cloister in Wittenberg.

And I invite you to do the same looking in your own backyard before you presume to understand the Lutheran Church. You have shown over and over again you understand very little, even your own Church tradition and your Church’s work today in its seeking out church unity, not by badgering, but by true dialogue.

I agree the differences are great, but God in Christ is greater still. If God can rescue you or me from the abyss of sin, he surely can bring down all walls that divide us (Ephesians 2).

Hang on, you ssit there and preach about honest dialogue, but when i mention the differences in our church’s you say call it badgering and not dialogue? clearly you haven’t had much experience in dialogue - i’m sorry to say but dialogue isn’t counted when you speak to anyone who agrees with you. And again for the last time I KNOW THE EFFORTS THAT HE CHURCH AS MADE FOR UNITY, and i support it but honest dialogue and effort to become needs to have a realisation that there is truth and error. My belief is that the catholic church has the truth. Plain and simple, it’s had the truth for 2000 years and not once has it changed! Can you say the same? if our faiths are sre similar and you long for unity then why is it so hard for you to come into the catholic church? why is it so hard for you to acknowledge the pope as the head of the church militant?

 

[Louie1983]

I see now what you were driving at in the “saying” quote. I am not presuming you do it at all, but there are many on this forum who do that to fellow Catholics. “you are”, “they are” cafeteria catholics etc. Those that use this polemic are saying “we are the only ones that can speak for the Catholic Church” don’t listen to “those Cafeteria Catholics”. What gives the ones claiming to be the authority, the authority. Have they been called or appointed to this position by their Bishop, and with that the authority to shut down other Catholics on this forum from giving their opinion (by this I mean that in their comment of a person being a “Cafeteria Catholic” they undermine their credibility and their understanding of the faith). I don’t presume to speak for the whole of the Lutheran Communion, although I have a valid call and ordination to speak authoritatively on our doctrines. I do look in my own backyard, but just as you speak up and out about your Church when you feel others have maligned it, I will do the same. God Bless and Good night!

Good, you saw my point. However you have to understand that when one catholic corrects
another catholic, you don’t need authority for this from your bishop. If i hear someone clearly given out the wrong information on the catholic faith or saying that it’s ok to believe one part of the faith and but deny the other and still call themsleves catholic, i will move to correct them. This is because there are those who actually study the faith in it’s entirety and actually defend it correctly, and there are those who don’t. There is no need for “authority” to correct someone or to defend the faith.

So if you heard a fellow lutheran speaking incorrectly about the faith, would you not move to correct him? or would you let him go on in error?

 

[Louie1983]

You didn’t answer my question. Did Lutherans or Catholics “give in” on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification"? Did it find truth, albeit limited in scope?

**I can’t be too sure in regards to this point as i have not studied this yet. **

I believe the Church showed pride and sin when, in order to raise duckets, refused to listen to Luther about corrupt practices within the Church. There was fault on both sides.

But there were popes and bishops and priests who were fighting against this as well, you make it sound like luther was the only one to ever say something about church conduct. There were many priests, laity and bishops who were fighting against corrupt conduct within the church. But you son’t see them being disobedient to the church do you?

I never said compromise. We won’t compromise, either, I wouldn’t want or expect Rome to. Dialogue is not about compromise, or winners and losers, it is about finding ways, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to express truth together.

You said earlier you were in support of dialogue between our communions, yet you don’t seem to think that the Holy Spirit can lead us together. I’ve mentioned this before, but I have heard Catholics say that all that needs to happen for unity is for Protestants to “come home”. I have also heard Lutherans say that all that needs to happen for unity is for the Catholic Church to renounce “false doctrine”. Well, it seems to me that, up until 50 years ago, that was the prevailing approach to unity. I think we can agree that approach pretty much didn’t work.
Triumphalism doesn’t bring unity. It only brings further hardening of hearts. I oppose Lutheran triumphalism, and Catholic triumphalism.

Jon

How can two churches express truth together when there are many areas that we disgree on? I hear what your saying in regards to being united in some areas, however, the catholic church is not about spreading parts of the truth it’s about spreading the whole truth in it’s entirety, the same truth it has held for 2000 years!

There is only one truth that can be preached, and that truth is held by the catholic church. If the church didn;t believe that don’t you think they would have accepted other christian denominations practises by now? (women ordained as preiests, homesexuality as a normal way of living, abortion, contraception etc)

 

[Louie1983]

It is not that I don’t get it, I just disagree with that assessment.

 

[motstraumen]

Good, you saw my point. However you have to understand that when one catholic corrects
another catholic, you don’t need authority for this from your bishop. If i hear someone clearly given out the wrong information on the catholic faith or saying that it’s ok to believe one part of the faith and but deny the other and still call themsleves catholic, i will move to correct them. This is because there are those who actually study the faith in it’s entirety and actually defend it correctly, and there are those who don’t. There is no need for “authority” to correct someone or to defend the faith.

So if you heard a fellow lutheran speaking incorrectly about the faith, would you not move to correct him? or would you let him go on in error?

Guess what Louie1983, I agree with you on this one.