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

[rinnie]

I agree with you, rinnie. I just don’t understand why Protestant and Catholic didn’t stand up to this evil man and his regime. It was shown that it was effective in Scandinavia. When the clergy arose almost in toto and laid down their offices instead of declaring Nazi filth from the pulpit the Nazis did not know what to do. They backed off and an amazing amount of people, especially Jews, were saved. It is like the bully on the playground, everything is great when they have the upper hand, but turn the tables and they are lost.

Fear, and like any other person like him are so consumed with evil they are so filled with hate and anger they go insane. And People forget that just because the devil is evil he also has evil powers. The devil is the master at fooling inocent people, they brain wash them, etc. But you are correct he had no excuse for what he did to those poor Jews. They are Gods people just like us. But People we scared to death of him.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No Spring Meadow you do not understand what the magisterium is. It is the teaching office. Only God can make known to us the truths we most need to know. God’s Son continues to speak to who he chooses to send in his name. Jn. 15:16. They must not be SELF-APPOINTED they must BE CALLED in HIS NAME Jer 23:13-28. Jesus did not leave us orphans. He anointed in the Holy Spirit who he chose to continue to teach everything he made know to them in his name. It was by the will of Jesus Christ that the Apostles would speak in his name and with his authority they taught on matters of the faith.

I make no accusation. You took it as such. I asked a question. That is a bit different. Your paranoia is showing. Is women’s ordination infallibly taught? some say it is, others say it is not. And I’m talking about Catholics, not Protestants. You simply don’t know half the time, and conveniently I think say it’s not when things change.

 

[rinnie]

I make no accusation. You took it as such. I asked a question. That is a bit different. Your paranoia is showing. Is women’s ordination infallibly taught? some say it is, others say it is not. And I’m talking about Catholics, not Protestants. You simply don’t know half the time, and conveniently I think say it’s not when things change.

I just showed you the difference. And put it in the most simple terms that I could. You called that paranoia. 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.

To this date the Pope said that NO women cannot be ordained. God speaks through him and the Magisterim and says No. THere has never been a problem there. The Pope says NO its NO. If you ask any RC they will tell you the Pope said No. THere is only one Pope. SO how can other’s say yes and others’s say No. RC go by the teaching’s of the Pope and Bishops, I showed you now again.

Now it is your turn. You just said that the RC do not know half the time. Please show me where the RC faith said yes. You made the statement now you show me. You have continued to talk about the RC faith on this site and never have the proof. It is not fair to our faith, our Pope and our followers. The Roman Catholic Church is consistent in its teachings. How can it not be, it if the Pope who runs it. And all Catholics who are in communion with Rome obey him. Now the proof is on you. You accused me of being paranoid. I am not, I am telling you the truth. Now you said it, now show me where the RC church ever went against the Pope and said yes women could be ordained? I have never seen the RCC ever go against the Pope.

 

[Louie1983]

We hear the same refrain from some RCs here. The RCC never errors, but there is “misconduct” on the part of “some” members. Members (clergy) are in error, but never the Church as a whole. My question is, how do you keep the two separate? Under this definition, no church of any denomination need ever be in error. It simply has members who err from time to time. Therefore the RCC did not err with regard to Galileo, but only a few men in the church at that time. It seems a wispy definition, one that can be used at will to “prevent the Church from error.”

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.

 

[rinnie]

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.

 

[Louie1983]

When the many Protestants who come here out of a real desire to learn more are accused over and over again by people like this of various things, with no proof to back it up, it gives me every right to do the same. Her faith is not following her leaders, which as I understand from all the Catholic members on here one must do! Why can’t I call her or you a cafeteria catholic when you so often do the same to many of your own members, and apparently feel that way about your superiors ie the Pontiff, the Bishops, Priests who have called all faithful to dialogue. By saying the Lutherans don’t want it, that is selling not only us short, but your superiors. And if that is your attitude about dialogue that we all just give up on our tenets of faith without fully fleshing them out in ernest dialogue then we can also go back to the 1950s and before and say, unless those heathen papists return to the Word of God, Jesus Christ and his pure teaching of the Confessions and reinstated purity that the Lutheran Confessions brought back then we won’t talk to them. This is not the attitude of the majority of Lutherans or protestants today, they do truly long for a unity in our one source of unity Jesus Christ. If you can’t understand that then you too are out of step with what has been going on these many years between the Catholic hiearchy and their Protestant counterparts.

When it comes to personal opinions I am fine with it, but I have seen all too often, it is just great for the catholic (the truly catholic, not the cafeteria catholic) to voice their fine opinion, but let someone disagree with them and then we have the response like yours. I can handle it, but it seems you or distracted cannot.

1, I know very much the effort that is going on between catholics and protestants in dialogue and the push for unity. I appreciate this and encourage it.

2,**When you say that “When the many Protestants who come here out of a real desire to learn more are accused over and over again by people like this of various things, with no proof to back it up, it gives me every right to do the same.” **What happened to turning the other cheek here? And she’s not accusing you of anything, it’s just her feelings and opinion.

3, I have never personally called anyone a cafeteria catholic, Actually on a thread a couple of weeks back i actually supported the fact that it is a bit rude and unfair to call someone that.

4, What unity do you speak about? the type where we shake hands and smile and have all fuzzy feelings about each other? or the one type of unity we are loyal to the one church, one faith lead by the pope and leading the fight against evil TOGETHER in this world? Yes ofcourse there is love and solidarity has to be a apart of it, but not when we are separated the way we are. i know which one i would prefer. (just incase your confused, it’s the second one).

 

[rinnie]

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.

Exactly Louie, The Church has never taught that Man cannot fall from Grace. The Church has never taught that fallible teachings from any Priest, Bishop, Pope, etc is the infallible word of God. Any Priest Pope etc can say they think this or that. But unless its dogma its not the sure thing. I am so tired of her doing this time after time against us, and without one piece of proof. All I am asking for is proof!

 

[Louie1983]

JonNC:
]

I think by laying blame at men of both sides, your Church clearly is saying that Luther was not alone in the sad events of the 1500’s. If you will recall, Luther’s initial complaints did not deal with Church doctrine, per se, but with Church practice even up to the highest levels in Rome. There was plenty of error to go around, and to simplify this into “what Luther did” does not reveal the entire story.

***You still don’t get it, Yes there was blame on both sides for the events but the catholic church held the truth and faith and luther in the end strayed from them that. That was the end result whether you like it or not. There was error in conduct and action but not in fath and doctrine. This is where i think Luther got confused. ***

For example: Luther removed books from the Bible. Aside that the statement is factually not true - Luther’s Bible contained all the books (except for the ones that the Orthodox claim Rome has removed ). Luther’s take on the canon was similar to many of his era and before, and his Bible was pre-Trent. My understanding that his position was not considered heresy at his time.

Factually it is true, why does the lutheran bible today have sevral books removed? The catholic church has not removed any of the books from the bible, the orthodox have no proof of this, it was just an accusation. Luther’s take on canon was similar to many of his era and beofe? then why was it not acknowledge by the church if this is so? You make a big deal out of the fact that scholars disagreed with the church, so what? that’s why they had councils and that’s why they had magisteriums. And also, there were also many before luther who agreed with the church position

I could simplify what the Church was doing by saying they were selling indulgences, but even that improperly simplifies the times and events.

Fair enough, the church has made mistakes in conduct, the church claims to be infallible in faith and teachings. It doesn;t claim to be impeccable in conduct! And just a side comment, i wonder why so many non-catholics look at all the negative things the church has been involved? do you never look at the good it has done (feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, the many great saints it has produced, the miracles as well) I bet if you were to add up the positive and the negatives, the positives would greately out weight the negatives.

So, when the Catholic Catechism lays blame at men on both sides, I don’t believe they mean just Luther.

Have already acknowledge this above, again it was talking about the conduct not the faith!

Finally, one must read further into 818 and 819:

I find the last sentence remarkable: ‘All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity”.’

I believe the call to catholic unity (a redundancy, but no matter) requires a reaching out by Christians of good will on both sides. With the Holy Spirit, I believe the differences between us can be overcome.

Jon

Yeah? Catholic unity, in other words the church is calling all christians home. But also respect and love those who are outside the church. Does this surprise you? If the church was talking about unity among christiand and disregarding the the faith it would have said “christian unity”.

I believe these changes can be overcome also, but one side has to give in and unfortunately for you, it won’t be the catholic church.

 

[Louie1983]

Exactly Louie, The Church has never taught that Man cannot fall from Grace. The Church has never taught that fallible teachings from any Priest, Bishop, Pope, etc is the infallible word of God. Any Priest Pope etc can say they think this or that. But unless its dogma its not the sure thing. I am so tired of her doing this time after time against us, and without one piece of proof. All I am asking for is proof!

Let’s be patient, it’s in all in good dialogue for our non-catholic borthers and sisters, who want to know more about the faith.

 

[rinnie]

If I have offened anyone I am sorry. I want so much more then anything in this world for us to all come together in one faith, one church for the simple reason is we all BELIEVE IN ONE GOD. But how is that ever going to be possible if we are accused of things we didn’t do. And when we defend our Church we are accused of being paranoid etc.

I did my best to explain that when it is Church Dogma it comes from God. Not from the Pope, not a Priest. etc. The problem is that People refuse to believe that the bibles tells us that it will be revealed to us through them. I condemn no faith that acknowledges Jesus Christ as their God. While I agree that they do have some truth they do not have the fullness of the truth. How do I know this? Simple! The Sacraments,

To all that do not know what a sacrament is. IT is a outward sign instituted by Christ to give Grace.

You must have every sacrament to have every truth. The Catholic Church has that. Can you say that your church has every sacrament, and exercise’s that right! Then BINGO you have the right Church and the FULLNESS OF THE FAITH!

 

[JonNC]

I believe these changes can be overcome also, but one side has to give in and unfortunately for you, it won’t be the catholic church.

I’ll respond tomorrow to the rest, but for now a question: Who gave in on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification"? It isn’t always a matter of giving in, or winning or losing - that is our sin and pride talking, on both sides. It is both sides listening to the Holy Spirit, and finding the common language and common ground that
that I believe is there.

Jon

 

[Louie1983]

I’ll respond tomorrow to the rest, but for now a question: Who gave in on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification"? It isn’t always a matter of giving in, or winning or losing - that is our sin and pride talking, on both sides. It is both sides listening to the Holy Spirit, and finding the common language and common ground that
that I believe is there.

Jon

Common language and common ground? it’s about finding truth, that’s why the church had councils. I was talking about the giving into error and losing to error, i wasn’t talking about pride. I was saying there is no other choice but to overcome and beat error that is taught. I’m sorry but if you see this as being proud, then that’s your opinion.

I believe pride and sin is what Luther showed when he refused to listen to the church. Thinking that he understood better than 1500 years of church tradition and teaching.

How can you call it common ground if there will be differences in the faith? There is no room for catholics to compromise their faith. As soon as we do this, then we are no longer catholic.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Then BINGO you have the right Church and the FULLNESS OF THE FAITH!

Is the Catholic Church the right church to play bingo in?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Common language and common ground? it’s about finding truth, that’s why the church had councils. I was talking about the giving into error and losing to error, i wasn’t talking about pride. I was saying there is no other choice but to overcome and beat error that is taught. I’m sorry but if you see this as being proud, then that’s your opinion.

I believe pride and sin is what Luther showed when he refused to listen to the church. Thinking that he understood better than 1500 years of church tradition and teaching.

How can you call it common ground if there will be differences in the faith? There is no room for catholics to compromise their faith. As soon as we do this, then we are no longer catholic.

But playing devil’s advocate, Luther saw the papacy and infallibility, purgatory, and indulgences as not something that was 1,500 years old. The Orthodox never had purgatory and indulgences, adoration, and the belief in infallibility. Luther viewed them as innovations of the Middle Ages, not part of the deposite of faith.

 

[motstraumen]

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.

In Galileo’s day it was considered church doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe (there were divergent feelings about the shape of the earth), therefore he and Copernicus were censured. Galileo brought into question their (the Roman Church’s)teaching authority and it was because of that that he got into trouble.

You must look at the context, and if they were speaking authoritatively in that day to Galileo and his studies and how the studies opposed “the truth” that only the magisterium knew, (based not fully on scripture, but actually on Aristotle), and now they can say “oops, we messed up on that one” it is possible, yes, possible that they erred on other matters as well. To build a library in his honor five hundred years later, does little good, when the damage was done to his person and the bearing of false witness brought down “the life” of this scientist (faithful one at that) and son of the church. I say this with Jesus’ admonition on "if you call a person a fool (bearing false witness) you are guilty of murder (Matt. 5:22).

 

[motstraumen]

1, I know very much the effort that is going on between catholics and protestants in dialogue and the push for unity. I appreciate this and encourage it.

Great

2,**When you say that “When the many Protestants who come here out of a real desire to learn more are accused over and over again by people like this of various things, with no proof to back it up, it gives me every right to do the same.” **What happened to turning the other cheek here? And she’s not accusing you of anything, it’s just her feelings and opinion.

You don’t read her posts. Yes, indeed turn the other cheek, I will turn it every time, but I don’t see her or some of the others like her turn any cheek.

3, I have never personally called anyone a cafeteria catholic, Actually on a thread a couple of weeks back i actually supported the fact that it is a bit rude and unfair to call someone that.

Great! That doesn’t stop many of your church from saying.

4, What unity do you speak about? the type where we shake hands and smile and have all fuzzy feelings about each other? or the one type of unity we are loyal to the one church, one faith lead by the pope and leading the fight against evil TOGETHER in this world? Yes ofcourse there is love and solidarity has to be a apart of it, but not when we are separated the way we are. i know which one i would prefer. (just incase your confused, it’s the second one).

I also seek the second type with one caveat, I long for the one church led by Christ alone who declares that “I am with you to the ends of the ages, I will never leave you nor forsake you”. Now I am sure you will say that Christ gave this leadership to the successor of Peter (I tend to believe he gave it to all apostles on the grounds of faith, and that is the rock upon which the assembly or church was built, thus the apostolic faith), and many Lutherans would even submit to the pontiff as our earthly leader and visible head of the church on earth. I don’t consider love and solidarity as the warm fuzzy, if I understand you correctly they are part and parcel of the unity Christ longed for and prayed for. I work in love and solidarity in the name of Christ with many Catholic Christians here in my town and in my state. We understand through years of working together that what separates us is much less than what unites us, Christ alone and through him our deep desire to love and help our neighbor. Whether or not there are Headline making news “Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation declare that we are once again One!” the Holy Spirit is already at work within our communions that is driving (in the sense of German Treiben) the work of the unity.

 

[motstraumen]

Common language and common ground? it’s about finding truth, that’s why the church had councils. I was talking about the giving into error and losing to error, i wasn’t talking about pride. I was saying there is no other choice but to overcome and beat error that is taught. I’m sorry but if you see this as being proud, then that’s your opinion.

I believe pride and sin is what Luther showed when he refused to listen to the church. Thinking that he understood better than 1500 years of church tradition and teaching.

How can you call it common ground if there will be differences in the faith? There is no room for catholics to compromise their faith. As soon as we do this, then we are no longer catholic.

Luther and the other Reformers begged and pleaded for a council, and it didn’t happen until after Luther’s death and was not fully ecumenical.

Above you talk about the sin or error of a man or person not detracting from the church’s infallible teaching, yet, you come back and say well, Luther was a sinner, was prideful and therefore he was wrong. It doesn’t add up. The truth is the church hierarchy refused to listen to the common person out of pride and sin. If you look at the Lutheran Confessions they are rife with quotations from tradition. They stood squarely in the Church Catholic, but because they threatened the power (worldly power) of the papacy he (Luther) and his followers were condemned.

There is no room for Lutherans to compromise on faith either and that faith is Christ alone, as the Joint Declaration declares that both churches profess.

 

[Louie1983]

In Galileo’s day it was considered church doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe (there were divergent feelings about the shape of the earth), therefore he and Copernicus were censured. Galileo brought into question their (the Roman Church’s)teaching authority and it was because of that that he got into trouble.

You must look at the context, and if they were speaking authoritatively in that day to Galileo and his studies and how the studies opposed “the truth” that only the magisterium knew, (based not fully on scripture, but actually on Aristotle), and now they can say “oops, we messed up on that one” it is possible, yes, possible that they erred on other matters as well. To build a library in his honor five hundred years later, does little good, when the damage was done to his person and the bearing of false witness brought down “the life” of this scientist (faithful one at that) and son of the church. I say this with Jesus’ admonition on "if you call a person a fool (bearing false witness) you are guilty of murder (Matt. 5:22).

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.

 

[Louie1983]

I also seek the second type with one caveat, I long for the one church led by Christ alone who declares that “I am with you to the ends of the ages, I will never leave you nor forsake you”. Now I am sure you will say that Christ gave this leadership to the successor of Peter (I tend to believe he gave it to all apostles on the grounds of faith, and that is the rock upon which the assembly or church was built, thus the apostolic faith), and many Lutherans would even submit to the pontiff as our earthly leader and visible head of the church on earth. I don’t consider love and solidarity as the warm fuzzy, if I understand you correctly they are part and parcel of the unity Christ longed for and prayed for. I work in love and solidarity in the name of Christ with many Catholic Christians here in my town and in my state. We understand through years of working together that what separates us is much less than what unites us, Christ alone and through him our deep desire to love and help our neighbor. Whether or not there are Headline making news “Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation declare that we are once again One!” the Holy Spirit is already at work within our communions that is driving (in the sense of German Treiben) the work of the unity.

Doesn’t stop other catholics saying it? Seriously, this is weak. If i see a lutheran being violent, or swearing or committing a sin does that mean i’m going to assume that all lutherans are the same? This is what you are arguing here, just because a couple of catholics use the term doesn’t mean they all do. You need to look at your own backyard before saying things like that.

Yes we are united in some areas but not all, again and again i’ve explained this to you. It was the lutherans that separated from the church, not the other way around. I commend you for you efforts and your willingness to be united but as i’ve explained the differences that separate us are of great importance. I sincerely hope this can be overcome one day, but the unity of both churches you speak about, honestly do you think that the church will let go of some of it’s teachings in order for the sake of unity with a dissident group? the answer is no. Unity with Christ is the most important thing.

 

[Louie1983]

Luther and the other Reformers begged and pleaded for a council, and it didn’t happen until after Luther’s death and was not fully ecumenical.

Above you talk about the sin or error of a man or person not detracting from the church’s infallible teaching, yet, you come back and say well, Luther was a sinner, was prideful and therefore he was wrong. It doesn’t add up. The truth is the church hierarchy refused to listen to the common person out of pride and sin. If you look at the Lutheran Confessions they are rife with quotations from tradition. They stood squarely in the Church Catholic, but because they threatened the power (worldly power) of the papacy he (Luther) and his followers were condemned.

There is no room for Lutherans to compromise on faith either and that faith is Christ alone, as the Joint Declaration declares that both churches profess.

Why should the church call a council everytime wishes to challenge church teaching? If that were so then there would be a council everyday!

Yes i said luther was prideful and a sinner because his pride got in the way, this is what caused the split (kinda the same way your accusing the church members of sinning). He refused to accept church teaching because he thought he was right and knew better then the church (again, which had the backing of 1500 years of theologians and saints and early church fathers). If Lutheran confessions are rife with tradition then why are they so different from catholic teaching? why remove 7 books from the bible? why different beliefs in regards women ordination? What good is tradition if you change that tradition to suit your beliefs? Tradition is destroyed then.

The comment about threatening the pope’s wordly power is ridiculous, They condemned him because it threatened the truth and nothing else. If he stays loyal to the church none of this happens. I’ll admit there was some bad conduct from the catholic church’s part but they still held the truth of the faith regardless. If Luther honestly wanted the church to be better with it’s practices then he should have led by example like so many other great saints! Not create a split!

Yes the faith is Christ alone, This is the catholic faith. I really don’t think you understand this. If you did (and if luther did) he would have been obedient to the church but unfortunately that’s not what happened. The church in it’s creed states " we believe in one lord Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the father, god from god,light from light, true god from true god". Our church is built on christ in the eucharist with peter as his the leader of the church here on earth.