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

[OneTrueCathApos]

wish fulfillment… ? Well, i agree with OP… and i can tell you that as a Catholic, my faith is FAR from wish fulfillment…

I nver had a firm grasp on truth until i got deep into Catholicism… studying it, but mostly DOING it…

what religion are you?

I wouldn’t mind knowing more of your background because, well, it would help to understand where you are coming from…

but one thing jumps out at me from your post: you don’t understand some things… about Catholicism…

just looked… you are Episcopalian…

dont feel bad…

most Protestants do not undersand Catholicism…

Catholics are an entirely different “species”…

you have to BE Catholic to understand being Catholic…

But it is so true. You must BE Catholic in order to understand.

 

[O.S.Luke]

…there was nothing wrong with the Catholic church at the time of the Reformation, except people like Luther who imagined it.

No serious Catholic theologian or historian would agree with you.

If you read what happened at the Council of Trent, the education of clergy, financial and political abuses, a return to the intent and proper understanding of indulgences, a re-emphasis on parish ministry, and reform of polity and clergy hierarchy were all addressed and changes made. Things were broken institutionally.

Whether it warranted another schism, I don’t know. It is regrettable that it happened. But it would be the height of historical ignorance to say that there was nothing wrong with the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. Even Catholic historians and scholars will tell you that.

O+

 

[GodIsGracious]

Not speaking for Pastor Gary, but as a Lutheran… wait, one must understand what a Lutheran is. A Lutheran is a Catholic of the Augsburg Confession, or an evangelical Catholic. Our “religion” was founded on the suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That religion is called Christianity.
We are Christians, just like you, and you and I are in communion (albeit imperfect) with each other, through our Baptisms. You catechism says so, and I agree.

Jon

Where in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church does it say that Lutherans and Catholics are in communion? As far as I know, Lutherans are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome so no, Catholics and Lutherans are not in communion.

So I’d like to see where you get this idea that Lutherans and Catholics are in communion (albeit imperfect.) I’m open to amending my thoughts on this if you can prove it to me.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

No serious Catholic theologian or historian would agree with you.

If you read what happened at the Council of Trent, the education of clergy, financial and political abuses, a return to the intent and proper understanding of indulgences, a re-emphasis on parish ministry, and reform of polity and clergy hierarchy were all addressed and changes made. Things were broken institutionally.

Whether it warranted another schism, I don’t know. It is regrettable that it happened. But it would be the height of historical ignorance to say that there was nothing wrong with the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. Even Catholic historians and scholars will tell you that.

O+

There were NO selling of indulgences. That was a myth. A story concocted by Luther. That is what Catholic Scholars will tell you anyway. Look it up.

 

[racing59]

Thank you O.S.Luke,
I get real tired of people warping history for their Truth. There are a lot of things I would like to say, but out of respect for other RCC members I don’t. I came here to fellowship and learn not to her two peoples redrick.John the Baptist started the first Reformation against a corrupt Priesthood, which became a Herodian Priesthood, you don’t see any one talking against John the Baptist and the First Reformation except whom?
Peace

 

[GodIsGracious]

Thank you O.S.Luke,
I get real tired of people warping history for their Truth. There are a lot of things I would like to say, but out of respect for other RCC members I don’t. I came here to fellowship and learn not to her two peoples redrick.John the Baptist started the first Reformation against a corrupt Priesthood, which became a Herodian Priesthood, you don’t see any one talking against John the Baptist and the First Reformation except whom?
Peace

You’ll want to keep this in mind, racing59, that much of what is written out there as “history” about the Catholic church is written by people who have an agenda at taking down the church. I would be very skeptical of accepting their view of history.

I’ll give you an example: Indulgences. I saw a headline recently about how the Catholic church was “selling indulgences again.” COMPLETELY misconstrued what the Catholic church was doing. Since there was some sort of donation involved all of a sudden people were reading it as the Church selling indulgences. Especially since you have people who left the Church (Luther and others) who kept making claims and continue to make those claims. But it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

So. You need to keep the source in mind. There aren’t many, but there are some, unbiased historical accounts. I don’t know which ones those are, but with all of the historical accounts written, there has to be some that are unbiased.

The Catholic church has long since endured being accused of various crimes. Sure, there were some very horrible people in the Church, and higher up as well, but it does not dismiss from the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ himself founded.

I really do hope you stay and study what Catholicism is all about. What may seem like inconsistencies you will find to be very consistent taken in the context of the whole gospel. We ARE The Church Christ Himself founded. Now, whether you believe that, that’s up to you to determine. But please dont’ take those of us who have a love for the Catholic Church and are tired of being bashed simply for being Catholic, and who come off rather sharp, to be representative of the whole Church and the beauty of Her teachings. I know I fall into that category and after a recent interaction with Spirit Meadow (yes, I am crediting her (him?)) I have taken a step back to see how I am representing myself, my faith, and the Truth. I just ask that you do not judge us all that way.

Peace be with you.

 

[JonNC]

Where in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church does it say that Lutherans and Catholics are in communion? As far as I know, Lutherans are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome so no, Catholics and Lutherans are not in communion.

So I’d like to see where you get this idea that Lutherans and Catholics are in communion (albeit imperfect.) I’m open to amending my thoughts on this if you can prove it to me.

I sincerely hope you are.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. **But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became *separated from full communion ***with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

Through our baptisms, we are in an imperfect communion, unless I’m misinterpreting.

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Jon

 

[O.S.Luke]

There were NO selling of indulgences. That was a myth. A story concocted by Luther. That is what Catholic Scholars will tell you anyway. Look it up.

I “looked it up” 20 years ago - when I had a Catholic professor of church history.

I never said indulgences were sold. But there were often almsgivings involved, which invited scandal to the point that Pope Pius V issued a decree that the granting of indulgences could not involve any financial transaction, to avoid the appearance of currying favor. To quote Catholic Answers:
Catholic Answers:

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “(I)t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”

Just to get the record straight.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No serious Catholic theologian or historian would agree with you.

If you read what happened at the Council of Trent, the education of clergy, financial and political abuses, a return to the intent and proper understanding of indulgences, a re-emphasis on parish ministry, and reform of polity and clergy hierarchy were all addressed and changes made. Things were broken institutionally.

Whether it warranted another schism, I don’t know. It is regrettable that it happened. But it would be the height of historical ignorance to say that there was nothing wrong with the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. Even Catholic historians and scholars will tell you that.

O+

Sadly there are plenty of crackpots out there that are more than willing to feed this insane fanaticism either for a price or because they are fanatics themselves. It seems no faith is without it’s embarrassments who interepret the world in their own strange fashion.

Methinks someone got a stern talking to here, but, it hasn’t lasted but a post or two. We are back to the same ranting of falsehoods.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I sincerely hope you are.

Jon

This is what I’ll do. I’m at work right now, but I’ll reference what you have posted with the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and send it to a trusted person I know (he has a master’s in theology and used to be anglican who is now Catholic) and see what he says. Upon initial inspection I don’t read it the way you do but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The way I read it is that you have valid Christian Baptism, but we are not in communion, i.e. you cannot receive our communion and we cannot receive your communion, since your communion is not a valid communion. Especially since Lutherans are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That is what Catholics mean by “being in communion.” Or at least, what I was tought that Catholics should view “being in communion.”

Peace.

PS: I will state publicly that you are someone on this forum who is inspiring me to come off nicer. My ‘excuse’ is that I’ve been going through some really weird spiritual stuff lately and I’m having to take a step back from things. But this does not necessarily mean I’ll be acquiescing. I know and can accept that what others believe is what they believe, but it doesn’t mean I believe it.

 

[JonNC]

This is what I’ll do. I’m at work right now, but I’ll reference what you have posted with the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and send it to a trusted person I know (he has a master’s in theology and used to be anglican who is now Catholic) and see what he says. Upon initial inspection I don’t read it the way you do but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The way I read it is that you have valid Christian Baptism, but we are not in communion, i.e. you cannot receive our communion and we cannot receive your communion, since your communion is not a valid communion. Especially since Lutherans are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That is what Catholics mean by “being in communion.” Or at least, what I was tought that Catholics should view "being in communion."
Peace.

PS: I will state publicly that you are someone on this forum who is inspiring me to come off nicer. My ‘excuse’ is that I’ve been going through some really weird spiritual stuff lately and I’m having to take a step back from things. But this does not necessarily mean I’ll be acquiescing. I know and can accept that what others believe is what they believe, but it doesn’t mean I believe it.

You are quite correct, here. The imperfection of our communion is such that, sadly, we cannot share the Eucharist together (pray for the day). But there are many other ways where our unity in Christ through our baptisms are, or at least should be, clear and apparrant for the world to see.

Jon

PS I appreciate your kind words. I’ll pray for your spiritual peace.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The way I read it is that you have valid Christian Baptism, but we are not in communion, i.e. you cannot receive our communion and we cannot receive your communion, since your communion is not a valid communion. Especially since Lutherans are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That is what Catholics mean by “being in communion.” Or at least, what I was tought that Catholics should view “being in communion.”

From UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

Of course, some Catholics are suspect of anything that came out of Vatican II. So take it for what it is worth.

O+

 

[GodIsGracious]

From UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

Of course, some Catholics are suspect of anything that came out of Vatican II. So take it for what it is worth.

O+

O.S. Luke, thanks! I’m not one of those that are suspect of anything that came out of Vatican II. Thank you for pasting the quotation and the link to the reference. Saved me a lot of work.

What this tells me then is that there is being in full communion and then there is having an imperfect communion with each other. Also, this shows that children are not susceptible to the “sins of their fathers.” Which is what I have learned in the Catholic Church as well.

However, in keeping with the original topic, I am still dead sure that the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

 

[JonNC]

From UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

Of course, some Catholics are suspect of anything that came out of Vatican II. So take it for what it is worth.

O+

Thanks for this, O.S. I knew there was another document where “communion” was used in this way, but couldn’t put my finger on it.

Jon

 

[O.S.Luke]

I am still dead sure that the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

I am dead sure that the One True Church is katholikos. I’ve said and believed that every Sunday of my life.

 

[distracted]

Oy, you and OTCA are quite a tag team. You’re certainly going to win converts.

In Christ,
Andrew

no human can win converts… (just help things along maybe)

if the Truth, albeit spoken by someone who is “annoying” (which i assume is what you are saying i am) does not convert… then all my being nice isn’t going to work either…

being nice (subjective term, for sure) doesn’t ensure truth… If someone converts because of my being “nice” (hate that word anyway)…

well, then, they didn’t convert for the right reason…

 

[Harpazo]

no human can win converts… (just help things along maybe)

if the Truth, albeit spoken by someone who is “annoying” (which i assume is what you are saying i am) does not convert… then all my being nice isn’t going to work either…

being nice (subjective term, for sure) doesn’t ensure truth… If someone converts because of my being “nice” (hate that word anyway)…

well, then, they didn’t convert for the right reason…

Hello distracted,

You know that this is hogwash. There are ways to share your faith with others without coming across as arrogant and condescending and “holier than thou.” While you and OTCA clearly have a zeal for your faith, you do come across with the attributes I listed above.

Was Christ arrogant and screaming at people to get them to convert? Not the Christ I read about in the Bible and from the Liturgy.

That’s all I have to say on the matter.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Pater_Familias]

I agree wholeheartedly that humility is required of all of us and that the need to be first or most important will get one nowhere since such a need has it’s source in pride which as we know is the doorway to many a serious vice and sin.

However that does not mean that I must be fearful or hesitant when proclaiming the truth which the Church has declared for 2000+ years. Contrary to what this highly secularised age in which we live would have us believe our salvation is a black and white issue and there are no grey areas.

Something is either true or not . Does that truth let me feel better about my faith ? Of course not , being a faithful follower of Christ is a daily battle with small victories and many defeats . The path is narrow and perilous and my faith as a catholic helps me along the way but it certainly does not imbue me with sense of false security or superiority because like all of us I am a sinner in need of constant conversion and penance.

It saddens me when I see so many searching for truth in the wrong place and I will not hesitate to say so because my faith is not based upom my interpretation of scripture but the teachings oral and otherwise as well as the interpretation of scripture by the church throughout the ages. I don’t need the RCC to be the true church but it is .

God Bless and keep you

Yes, but did you ever read the scripture where in Jesus talked to the brothers who were concerned about which one of them would sit at his right hand in heaven? I think Jesus made it quite clear that those who puff themselves up with importance and demand special attention for their being “first” would find themselves alas not where they expected.

I am always happy to see that the RCC doesn’t spend much time telling us Non RC’s that we are less than they are. I seriously question whether your braggadocia is appreciated by the RCC. All you claim depends on an interepretation of scripture that serves your interests in claiming primacy in Christendom. I have no idea why that is needed by a few RCC to feel good about their faith, but it is most apparent that it is. Blessings.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree wholeheartedly that humility is required of all of us and that the need to be first or most important will get one nowhere since such a need has it’s source in pride which as we know is the doorway to many a serious vice and sin.

Agreed

However that does not mean that I must be fearful or hesitant when proclaiming the truth which the Church has declared for 2000+ years. Contrary to what this highly secularised age in which we live would have us believe our salvation is a black and white issue and there are no grey areas.

 

[Hesychios]

I “looked it up” 20 years ago - when I had a Catholic professor of church history.

I never said indulgences were sold. But there were often almsgivings involved, which invited scandal…

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "(I)t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place

It seems like the Catholic Encyclopedia is engaging in Sophistry. Actually the sole purpose of sending Tetzel and company on the road was to collect “alms”. Otherwise there was no need for him!

Any parish priest could do what he did. The big difference was that the individual was not required to make a confession. There was a quid pro quo here.

How many of these ‘indulgences’ were given for no money or gifts? As far as we can tell none, it has not been pointed out as a defense of the practice. How many confessions did Tetzel hear in that time in lieu of coin? It has not been revealed to us.

Was it Tetzel’s idea to go out and collect the “alms”? No. The idea originated with the Pope. His accountants told him he was spending money faster than he could collect it. Not surprisingly, they turned to a man who had prior experience at this, with other bishops at least if not former Popes.

But we need to go back a few years, perhaps generations, and look at this in the way a common parish priest would have seen it for a long time. What shocked many young devoted priests and monks (like Luther, but by no means only him) was the corruption at the center, on their pilgrimages to Rome. That would give any devout and impressionable Christian cognitive dissonance and they would have to deal with that emotional strain when they got home, away from the rats nest. Obviously there was a lot of angst in these men, unable to reconcile what they had seen in Rome with what they knew the church was really like in the parish.

Then unfortunately the Medici Pope (from a prominent Italian banking family) sends these agents out, specifically to “collect alms” for something any parish priest should be able to do for free, and the reaction among local priests was predictable. From their perspective the poison and corruption was spreading.

Simony (a great sin) was already a serious problem in the church hierarchy for centuries. The sale of Cardinals positions had been a routine practice for many centuries by this time, and the new Cardinals expected to make that money back, plus a profit, by collecting fees through their services (granting approvals for dispensations and such) to the local churches. Usually, an individual embarking on a career path like that would borrow money from a banking house which was due with interest. These corrupt men were the electors of the Pope, and usually chose among themselves for the highest position in the church. Often the process involved intensive bargaining with promises made to ensure support.

The Medici family was a big financial banker of Pope John XXIII the anti-Pope 100 years previous. They had been involved in this racket a long time, even putting two of their own youngsters into the “system”, and naturally they paid the customary “alms” as they rose in rank in the church.

There were also bishops who held multiple Sees, *against canon law *but with dispensations from the Popes. This put the bishop in great debt (not to the Pope, as he took cash) to the bankers, but they expected to make it up as they collected income from their own share of “alms” in each diocese they controlled.

The whole indulgence scandal should not be seen in isolation, it was part of a much greater problem. Not simply a questionable theological problem, a chronic systemic problem.

Michael