What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[benedictus2]

Hi Joe,
I believe that we are both included in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church and are earthly manifestations of that church – the church that exists outside of time and space.

It would be disingenuous to argue with the first part of your question, that Protestantism is a major movement within Christianity. However, at least from a Lutheran perspective, I believe we have the same roots in the apostolic faith as the Catholic Church.

This however does not address the quesion of the need for any other extra churches.Christ founded the Catholic Church and 1500 years later the Lutheran and other protestant churches sprang up.

If you believe that Christ founded only one Church and that Church subsists in the Catholic Church of today, why is there a need for other churches. That is clearly contrary to His expressed WILL

 

[benedictus2]

:thumbsup:Cinette: A bit of a delay, in answering your questions, but here goes:1) Faith of course is the substance of thingshoped for and the evidence of things not seen:thumbsup: Faith is also. my sister praying for twenty-one years, for her husband to come to Christ(and he eventually did). Faith is my co- worker praying for eleven years, to become pregnant; on the day they sugned the adoption papers, she found out she was pregnant When my former fiance died, people around me said,“You have big faith.” I said,"I don’t need big faith, because I serve a BIG God! It’s not about the size of my faith, it’s who my faith is in!2) If Jesus says it, it is important, and I believe it! He doesn’t mince words. So, yes, I believe everything that Jesus says! 3) I believe that eventually, God will reveal all answers to us; but in His own time and when He feels the need for us to know

That is beautiful! A friend of mine has a similar story. The couple even tried IVF in desperation and spent thousands of dollars. Then she met this priest who gave her a relic of St Gerard Magella and a month later she conceived. God works wonders but all in His time. Most of the time we demand that it be in our time and God’s “no” is a lot of times not a 'no" but a 'not yet."

 

[benedictus2]

The Lutheran church was NOT built by Luther. Had it sprung up ex nihilo through Luther’s efforts, I might agree with you. However, that is not the case. Had it been so, we most likely would would not believe in the Holy Trinity, the creeds, and much else that we hold as the true faith.

How do you account for the fact that prior to the “reformation” there was no Lutheran Church.

Guanophore (I think it was her if I remember correctly) on another thread, made this anology regarding the Catholic Church and all the other churches. The Catholic Church is the Castle that Christ built and all the other churches are tents that remain within the Castle grounds and as such are also under the protection of the King.

But the question is, why insist on living in tents when there is a welcoming fire in the Castle itself and the King has infact built the Castle to shelter all?

Why is it a big deal?? I would welcome you in the church I serve. It isn’t we Lutherans – at least not all of us – who shut the door.

But is welcoming really the issue? Why do we need any other church to be welcomed in when Christ has already established one Church to welcome all.

Sola scriptura simply means that scripture is the ultimate authority, the norm that norms all other norms.

How can Sola Scriptura be the norm that norms all other norms when the Bible does not even claim that authority for itself?

How can you subject all authorities to the Bible when the canon of Scripture itself rested on another authority?

How can you go with Sola Scriptura when Catholics and Protestants do not even have the same canon? When in fact Luther excised the parts of the Bible to suit his own theology?

Don’t you see that when you go with Sola Scriptura based on the protestant Bible it is not Scripture that you are saying is the authority, but rather Luther, because he was the one who determined what books should and should not belong in the protestant Bible?

 

[joe370]

Janet, keep in mind, when you say: For me to ever even consider becoming catholic again after being there for 23 years (baptized, confirmed and through school education) the church would have to go through radical changes…you are actually saying: For me to ever even consider becoming catholic again after being there for 23 years (baptized, confirmed and through school education) —the Infallible Holy Spirit which is guiding Jesus’ church in perpetuity as per scripture, would have to go through radical changes! Is that what you are saying?

Posted by Janet1983 View Post
For me to ever even consider becoming catholic again after being there for 23 years (baptized, confirmed and through school education) the church would have to go through radical changes…

Abolition of the following:

1. Veneration of the saints, especially Mary
2. Praying to saints (addressing someone else than God in a prayer is praying to that person… e.g “Hail Mary”… They cannot hear these prayers anyway… it is far better to ask a brother or sister in Christ who is among the living to pray)
3. Current definition of “saint” as every member of the true church is a saint already and we are justified through Him… Paul talks to and about the members of the churches as saints.
4. Transubstantiation…
5. Adoration of the eucharist (blasphemy) instead of focusing on the Word of God
6. Perpetual adoration
7. Special priesthood…
8. Only the church and especially the pope can interpret scripture
9. Infallibility of the pope when he is speaking ex cathedra
10. Sacraments as a means of salvation (works do follow once we are saved because we are already saved)
11. Infant baptism
12. Confession to a priest (though I think that general spiritual guidance and help is appropriate when sought… confessions however are to be made to God)
13. Forgiveness of sins through the church
14. Prayer for the deceased (if they are in hell it is too late… if they are in heaven there is no need)
15. Purgatory (It is either heaven or hell… either a full atonement through the sacrifice of the Lord or none)
16. Classification of sins (the wages of sin is death)
17. Salvation as a graduate process
18. Apocrypha
19. Teachings about Mary, including her staying a virgin after Jesus was born, the assumption that she was without sin and the she ascended into heaven with her body and soul
20. Excluding women from the clergy
21. Forced celibacy of the clergy
22. The church as the Church of Christ instead of realizing that the Church are truly all Christians that are saved and atoned for by the blood of Christ
23. Not accepting other Christian churches are equally valid and right while declaring that somebody who was raised in a totally different religion can obtain salvation if he was truly seeking after God… (Jesus said “I AM THE WAY” and He meant it)
24. Not opposing the evolution theory
25. Traditions as equally important as God’s Word in the Bible
26. Not acknowledging that salvation is only by the pure grace of God
27. Not acknowledging the absolute inerrant Word of God as manifested in the Bible

Well those would be some…
I would turn back to the church if these things weren’t there… These were the reasons for me turning away in the first place… Without these I could reconcile with the church without conflicting with my conscience…
Thanks you for asking and reading through this…

In Him,
Janet

---

 

[Peter_J]

These are 2 questions I could not answer as a former Lutheran: If all the powers of hell can not conquer Jesus’ established church, circa 33 AD, which, as per sacred scripture was/is guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity, WHY WOULD I WANT TO BELONG TO ANY OTHER CHURCH? If all the powers of hell at some point in history did in fact conquer Jesus established Church to which He is suppose to be the Head and Savior, as per sacred scripture, why in the world would I continue to be a Christian?

At times like this, I can really understand why people complain about anti-Protestantism on this forum.

 

[gcnuss]

[This however does not address the quesion of the need for any other extra churches.Christ founded the Catholic Church and 1500 years later the Lutheran and other protestant churches sprang up.

If you believe that Christ founded only one Church and that Church subsists in the Catholic Church of today, why is there a need for other churches. That is clearly contrary to His expressed WILL

I believe there is only one church but I have not been convinced that it subsists in the Catholic Church alone. The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is far more encompassing than any one ecclesiastical body here on earth. At the same time, I believe that the earthly divisions in that one church constitute a scandal to our Lord. Yet, despite those divisions, there is only one church – not unified here on earth as our Lord prayed that it might be, but one church nonetheless. And, I have no doubt that the saints who have gone before us find themselves gathered around the heavenly throne without division.
[/quote]

 

[benedictus2]

I believe there is only one church but I have not been convinced that it subsists in the Catholic Church alone. The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is far more encompassing than any one ecclesiastical body here on earth. At the same time, I believe that the earthly divisions in that one church constitute a scandal to our Lord. Yet, despite those divisions, there is only one church – not unified here on earth as our Lord prayed that it might be, but one church nonetheless. And, I have no doubt that the saints who have gone before us find themselves gathered around the heavenly throne without division.

If the Catholic Church can exist until the 1500s without needing any other churches, what is the need for any other 1500 years later.

The problem with starting a church and separating from the Catholic Church is that it is like the camel’s nose, once you allow it the rest follows. Thats is why after that first break, further splintering followed.

And how can you “believe” there is only one church when the reality of the situation proves this false.

 

[Cinette]

These are 2 questions I could not answer as a former Lutheran: If all the powers of hell can not conquer Jesus’ established church, circa 33 AD, which, as per sacred scripture was/is guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity, WHY WOULD I WANT TO BELONG TO ANY OTHER CHURCH? If all the powers of hell at some point in history did in fact conquer Jesus established Church to which He is suppose to be the Head and Savior, as per sacred scripture, why in the world would I continue to be a Christian?

Can anyone else answer these questions???

Joe! (Here we go again - can’t change font, size or colour!!!)

I would suggest you start a new thread posing these questions "Two questions Protestants cannot answer without compromising their “beliefs” or “Two questions Protestants refuse to answer” I am sure you can think of a title that would attract Protestants (ones who are serious about answers).

Blessings
Cinette

 

[guanophore]

I believe there is only one church but I have not been convinced that it subsists in the Catholic Church alone.

Keep looking! Who knows what you might find.

The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is far more encompassing than any one ecclesiastical body here on earth. At the same time, I believe that the earthly divisions in that one church constitute a scandal to our Lord. Yet, despite those divisions, there is only one church – not unified here on earth as our Lord prayed that it might be, but one church nonetheless. And, I have no doubt that the saints who have gone before us find themselves gathered around the heavenly throne without division.

It is very Catholic of you to say this. Your post sounds a lot like the catechism!

 

[joe370]

I was thinking about what Janet said about the Eucharist, being a blasphemous doctrine…

God said in Malachi:

*“See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years. “So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.
After Jesus refined and purified the Levites like gold and silver, He finally had men to bring offerings in righteousness, and this righteous offering of Judah and Jerusalem, which is Christ Himself, is now acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years. Malachi 3:1-4 (Key Passage) — Acceptable Offerings: Malachi prophesies about the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. We are all familiar with the description of John as a herald who would prepare the way for Jesus (Malachi 3:1), and Jesus as a “refiner’s fire” (Malachi 3:2). But what would the specific result of their ministries be? How does Malachi describe the particular change that they would institute? Malachi answers the question by saying that when Jesus comes with his forerunner, “Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness and … they will be acceptable to the Lord” (Malachi 3:3-4). Although we often gloss over it, Malachi prophesied that the specific result of John and Jesus’ coming would be righteous offerings that please God. According to Malachi, Jesus would correct the halfhearted giving that the prophet had condemned so emphatically in Malachi 1:6-14. Moreover, if we turn a few pages and look at what the New Testament tells us about John and Jesus’ message, we will find that Malachi’s prophesy came true. Even though burnt offerings were no longer to be made on an altar because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, both John and Jesus’ messages were saturated with exhortations to give to God through generosity toward our neighbor (e.g. Mark 10:17-21; Luke 3:10-14).

Of course, in the final analysis, Jesus himself is the righteous Sacrifice which was/is acceptable and pleasing to God, and He is the reason that our imperfect contributions are accepted. When Malachi said: “The Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,” He was talking about the priesthood of His established church, and the Eucharist. If not, then what is Malachi talking about?

 

[Cinette]

I believe there is only one church but I have not been convinced that it subsists in the Catholic Church alone. The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is far more encompassing than any one ecclesiastical body here on earth. At the same time, I believe that the earthly divisions in that one church constitute a scandal to our Lord. Yet, despite those divisions, there is only one church – not unified here on earth as our Lord prayed that it might be, but one church nonetheless. And, I have no doubt that the saints who have gone before us find themselves gathered around the heavenly throne without division.

“To be seeped in History is to cease to be Protestant.” Who said that Henry Newman or Bishop Fulton Sheen???

Gcnuss - are you afraid of what you might find if you delved deep into history?

Cinette

 

[Cinette]

I was thinking about what Janet said about the Eucharist, being a blasphemous doctrine…

God said in Malachi:

*“See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings *in righteousness, and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years. “So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.

After Jesus refined and purified the Levites like gold and silver, He finally had men to bring offerings in righteousness, and this righteous offering of Judah and Jerusalem, which is Christ Himself, is now acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years. Malachi 3:1-4 (Key Passage) — Acceptable Offerings: Malachi prophesies about the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. We are all familiar with the description of John as a herald who would prepare the way for Jesus (Malachi 3:1), and Jesus as a “refiner’s fire” (Malachi 3:2). But what would the specific result of their ministries be? How does Malachi describe the particular change that they would institute? Malachi answers the question by saying that when Jesus comes with his forerunner, “Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness and … they will be acceptable to the Lord” (Malachi 3:3-4). Although we often gloss over it, Malachi prophesied that the specific result of John and Jesus’ coming would be righteous offerings that please God. According to Malachi, Jesus would correct the halfhearted giving that the prophet had condemned so emphatically in Malachi 1:6-14. Moreover, if we turn a few pages and look at what the New Testament tells us about John and Jesus’ message, we will find that Malachi’s prophesy came true. Even though burnt offerings were no longer to be made on an altar because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, both John and Jesus’ messages were saturated with exhortations to give to God through generosity toward our neighbor (e.g. Mark 10:17-21; Luke 3:10-14).

Of course, in the final analysis, Jesus himself is the righteous Sacrifice which was/is acceptable and pleasing to God, and He is the reason that our imperfect contributions are accepted. When Malachi said: “The Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,” He was talking about the priesthood of His established church, and the Eucharist. If not, then what is Malachi talking about?

Joe - Janet is long gone! It would be nice if she were to read this thread thoroughly because of the many excellent posts. The truth is exciting and one should not just glance at it - one should take a good look and reflect and not ignore!

Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

“To be seeped in History is to cease to be Protestant.” Who said that Henry Newman or Bishop Fulton Sheen???

Gcnuss - are you afraid of what you might find if you delved deep into history?

Cinette

I would not even go to Henry Newman I would suggest Fr. Richard Neuhaus as he was also Lutheran.

His preface to Thomas Howard’s book Lead Kindly Light has many things to ponder on.

 

[Protestant101]

If the Catholic Church can exist until the 1500s without needing any other churches, what is the need for any other 1500 years later.

The problem with starting a church and separating from the Catholic Church is that it is like the camel’s nose, once you allow it the rest follows. Thats is why after that first break, further splintering followed.

And how can you “believe” there is only one church when the reality of the situation proves this false.

The reality of what situation? There has always been more than one denomination, since Old Testament times. The Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination.

Now; is there really “one” church? Of course. “Church” is intended as in the collective sense, numerous denominations, collectively known as “the Church.”

Adventists call it the church universal, which is composed of all God’s people throughout the world. It includes the believers within the visible church, and many who, though they do not belong to a church organization, have followed all the light Christ has given them (John 1:9).

This latter group includes those who have never had the opportunity to learn the truth about Jesus Christ but who have responded to the Holy Spirit and “by nature do the things contained in the law” of God (Rom. 2:14).

Christ calls the church a “body” which is in the collective sense - meaning all the different parts form The One. No one individual or organization is any better than the next. All the demeaning and chastising of those who cannot accept the raucous Roman Catholic claims of supremacy here on this forum is perfect proof that Catholic claims about their Church are false.

 

[benedictus2]

The reality of what situation? There has always been more than one denomination, since Old Testament times. The Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination.

Nope. Read history and you will find that there is only the Catholic Church until around about 1000’s then there is the schism with Eastern Orthordox. But that is more political thatn doctrinal Then the 1500s came and the free fall happened.

The other groups that sprouted from pentecost onwards were all heretical such as the Nestorians, Docetistst etc.
Now; is there really “one” church? Of course. “Church” is intended as in the collective sense, numerous denominations, collectively known as “the Church.”

Yes, there was only one Church. Christ built only one Church. The separations were all due to men. Only the Catholic Church can trace itself back ot Pentecost.
Adventists call it the church universal, which is composed of all God’s people throughout the world. It includes the believers within the visible church, and many who, though they do not belong to a church organization, have followed all the light Christ has given them (John 1:9).
Of course the protestants would redefine what Church means. But redefining what it means does not mean it is so because man is not hte one who define what it means to belong to Christ’s Chruch. Christ did that when He establisehd the Catholic Church.
This latter group includes those who have never had the opportunity to learn the truth about Jesus Christ but who have responded to the Holy Spirit and “by nature do the things contained in the law” of God (Rom. 2:14).

If they have been baptized in the Trinitarian way then yes they are members of the Catholic Church but imperfectly.
Christ calls the church a “body” which is in the collective sense - meaning all the different parts form The One.
Christ did not call it my body. I think it was St Paul who did that. Christ simply called it Church.
No one individual or organization is any better than the next.
All the demeaning and chastising of those who cannot accept the raucous Roman Catholic claims of supremacy here on this forum is perfect proof that Catholic claims about their Church are false.

It is not a question of being better or worse. It is a question of whether Christ established only one Church and whether it is is HIS WILL that there be only Church. That Church is the one that was born at Pentecost. And only the CAtholic Church can be traced back to the infant Church as Pentencost.

To say that there is only church now is to delude ones self when there is obviously not. If there is, there would only be single set of doctrines and we would all be under one Vicar of Christ.

That we are even discussing this proves that there is not just one Church.

 

[Protestant101]

benedictus2:
Nope. Read history and you will find that there is only the Catholic Church until around about 1000’s then there is the schism with Eastern
Christ did not call it my body. I think it was St Paul who did that. Christ simply called it Church.

It is not a question of being better or worse. It is a question of whether Christ established only one Church and whether it is is HIS WILL that there be only Church. That Church is the one that was born at Pentecost. And only the CAtholic Church can be traced back to the infant Church as Pentencost.

To say that there is only church now is to delude ones self when there is obviously not. If there is, there would only be single set of doctrines and we would all be under one Vicar of Christ.

That we are even discussing this proves that there is not just one Church.
There wasn’t even a “single set of doctrines” amongst the disciples, of which Peter was one! You keep saying “read history;” but when I read the Bible, I don’t see “Catholic” emblazoned anywhere. Not even once.

 

[joe370]

P101, you said:

There wasn’t even a “single set of doctrines” amongst the disciples, of which Peter was one!

You mean there was no Bible? You are correct sir! Jesus’ disciples as well as Peter and John belonged to Jesus’ One church, the house of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth, to which He is the head and savior, and they taught orally, and established universal churches, and, as per Jesus’ command, they were sent out into this world, starting in Jerusalem, passing through Judea and Samaria and finally to the ends of the earth, with the power of the Holy Spirit to build said universal churches, where they would proceed to teach all that Jesus commanded, and it was to be done in in perpetuity… or did they establish sundered and insular churches as we see in the protestant world today? Did your church proceed from Jerusalem on Pentecost?

You keep saying “read history;” but when I read the Bible, I don’t see “Catholic” emblazoned anywhere. Not even once.

P101, when you read your Holy Infallible Bible, you are reading a collection of books given to you by the C.C.; she codified/canonized your Holy Infallible Bible! If you don’t believe me, feel free to ask any accredited protestant scholar! The irony is uncanny; non-Catholic churches exclaim that the word of God is the infallible word of God, codified/canonized by the C.C. comprised of nothing but fallible sinners! How do you account for this impracticality? Is the bible a product of history, or did it drop from the sky the day your church was built, by a mere man?

Seventh-day Adventists: Bible-based and Spirit of Prophecy confirmed…

If the Seventh-day Adventists church is bible based, then you must believe that she is being guided by the Infallible Holy Spirit, since Pentecost; is this the case?

The Bible is it’s own, best Expositor.

If so, then why do you defer to the wisdom of teachers at your church, as per your church’s charter, as opposed to the best expositor? If so, then why has the infallible word of God via private interpretation divided and fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body to which He is the head and savior, so grievously in just 500 years, as opposed the unity and oneness the bride of Christ maintained for 1500 + years? I ask again: does your bible tell you to take it to the bible or to take it to the church to settle disputes? Is Jesus the savior of His church, to which He charged men, in His stead to govern, via the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit, or is He the Savior of all people who, regardless of church affiliation, independently take it to their Holy bible, to which Jesus charged in His stead to govern, via the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit?

I don’t expect I will get an answer…

The Bible is sufficient; for it is GOD’S WORD. - PROTESTANT 101
Reply With Quote

Where in the infallible Holy Bible does the it say: The Bible is sufficient for everything? Again why do you believe the Bible is God’s Word, given to you by a very fallible church, as all churches are?

 

[gcnuss]

“To be seeped in History is to cease to be Protestant.” Who said that Henry Newman or Bishop Fulton Sheen???

Or maybe Chesterton???

Gcnuss - are you afraid of what you might find if you delved deep into history?

Not in the least.

 

[Peter_J]

The reality of what situation? There has always been more than one denomination, since Old Testament times. The Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination.

I don’t doubt that you hold that opinion; but the question is, what can you say to convince us that the RCC is “just another denomination”?

Christ calls the church a “body” which is in the collective sense - meaning all the different parts form The One.

Those part all being in communion with one another.

All the demeaning and chastising of those who cannot accept the raucous Roman Catholic claims of supremacy here on this forum is perfect proof that Catholic claims about their Church are false.

Interesting. So then, if I go to a Protestant forum and find that people who reject Protestants claims are demeaned/attacked/bashed etc., would that be “proof” that the Protestant claims are false?

 

[guanophore]

The reality of what situation? There has always been more than one denomination, since Old Testament times. The Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination.

To “demoninate” means to distinguish oneself from another. Traditionally, Christian communities have done this, at least in part, by renaming themselves. As Scripture clearly shows, much is in a name, including the identity of what one is.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, 101, and your insistence on using this term amounts to a slur, since you have been advised of this many times. You demonstrate your hostility and adversarial attitude toward “Romanism” when you do this. What would happen if you were to accept that the Catholic Church is much broader than the Latin Rite with which you have had contact?

All the Protestant Churches, including yours, "denominated’ from Catholicism. From what, do you suppose, did the Catholic Church “denominate”?

 Now; is there really "one" church?  Of course.  "Church" is intended as in the collective sense, numerous denominations, collectively known as "the Church."

Jesus only built one church, one without division. The division (numerous denominations) represent man putting asunder what God has joined. This is a great sin, and in supporting this separation, we would incur the same guilt as those who caused it. JEsus wants unity, not division, in His Body. Division comes from another source.

Adventists call it the church universal, which is composed of all God’s people throughout the world. It includes the believers within the visible church, and many who, though they do not belong to a church organization, have followed all the light Christ has given them (John 1:9).

Yes, this is one of the Catholic Sacred Traditions espoused by the Adventists.

The New Testament is another.

This latter group includes those who have never had the opportunity to learn the truth about Jesus Christ but who have responded to the Holy Spirit and "by nature do the

things contained in the law" of God (Rom. 2:14).

Did you copy this from the Catholic Catechism?

Christ calls the church a “body” which is in the collective sense - meaning all the different parts form The One. No one individual or organization is any better than the next. All the demeaning and chastising of those who cannot accept the raucous Roman Catholic claims of supremacy here on this forum is perfect proof that Catholic claims about their Church are false.

I agree, the Church is His Body. We are each individually members of the collective. However, there are some that have special purpose and position in the Body.

The Catholic Church is not claiming “supremacy”. This is a fleshly (carnal) understanding of authority. Authority is found in truth and service. Jesus gave authority to His aposltes, and they to their successors, the bishops.

The Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth. This supremacy of Truth is found in the fullness of Christ, not any secular or earthly “lording over” others.