where is the reformed church...

[joe370]

Another question for my protestant brothers and sisters:

Where can the reformed church (which is the result of the protestant reformation of the catholic church, in the 16th century) - be found in the world today, and what are these doctrinal reforms embraced by the men who spearheaded the protestant reformation?

 

[Henry_Cornejo]

Most of the reformers believe that they are the reformed churches. Some say theirs are the restored churches.

 

[SyCarl]

There is only one Church. It consists in all people who truly believe. This is the body of Christ. There are many institutional churches in which these people can be found, including the Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches.

At Pentecost the body of Christ of was contained in one institution. That ended when the first split over doctrine occurred in the institutional church. Since that time the body has been spread over many institutions as more divisions have taken place. All of these churches can be said to descend from the original Church but none are identical with it. This is simply because prior to any split, the church contained those who held either view before the split, while after the split this would no longer be the case.

Continuity in the name of the Catholic Church does not mean it is the same church as at Pentecost. It merely meant that one part of the split church retained the old name. A precedent for this can be seen in the divided kingdom of Israel. The north retained the name Israel but Judah had David’s line as its king. However the sons of Israel were found in both parts.

I know that I may be pounced on for this but I believe the present Catholic Church dates from Vatican 1 when papal infallibility was defined and the Old Catholic Churches left. The Catholic Church was not the same church as before the Council since the pre-Vatican 1 church contained those who accepted and those who did not accept papal infallibility.

 

[Canto]

There is only one Church. It consists in all people who truly believe. This is the body of Christ. There are many institutional churches in which these people can be found, including the Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches.

If there is one Church (yes) shouldn’t the believers all believe the same things.

For example Christ said believe and be baptised to be saved
Some say no baptism some say yes
Those who say yes, some say no water some say water
Those who say water some say full immersion, some partial, some sprinkling.
Now Christ would not have told one person immersion and another just sprinkling and another no water at all etc

So which church truly is the Church and holds all the right beliefs. Is there one? If not did Jesus’ prayer that we be one not get answered.

Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven - infalibility? Can error be bound in heaven?

 

[SyCarl]

If there is one Church (yes) shouldn’t the believers all believe the same things.

For example Christ said believe and be baptised to be saved
Some say no baptism some say yes
Those who say yes, some say no water some say water
Those who say water some say full immersion, some partial, some sprinkling.
Now Christ would not have told one person immersion and another just sprinkling and another no water at all etc

So which church truly is the Church and holds all the right beliefs. Is there one? If not did Jesus’ prayer that we be one not get answered.

Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven - infalibility? Can error be bound in heaven?

Yes Jesus wanted us all to be one. However the Church is made up of people and people have freewill. God has always allowed us to act on this free will even when we acted against His will. Did God want Adam and Eve to fall? Did God want Israel to fall away? They did it anyway and, similarly, men have split the body of Christ among different organizations.

With respect to issues such as baptism, we are told to be baptized. That should be enough for us. Everyone who follows Jesus should want to be baptized simply because He told us to. We don’t have to know the reason or effects. If we are baptized then God will provide whatever benefits it may bring regardless of whether we understand them or not.

The early rule of faith was the Apostles’ Creed and I believe that if one can truly proclaim it then he is part of the body of Christ. The difficulty for us is the temptation to want to know and understand everything. When we think we understand it we want to make everyone agree with us and dissension arises when we do. All parties, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant are guilty of this. It is not enough for us to do what God tells us; we feel we have the right to know why He tells us to do things and what exactly happens when we do.

 

[Canto]

It is not enough for us to do what God tells us;

The thing is there is disagrement over what God tells us to do
for example Catholic believe Jesus told us to eat his flesh

 

[SyCarl]

The thing is there is disagrement over what God tells us to do
for example Catholic believe Jesus told us to eat his flesh

And He told us to do so under the species of bread and wine. If we do this I think God will carry out His will in it whether we understand what happens or not.

 

[Canto]

And He told us to do so under the species of bread and wine. If we do this I think God will carry out His will in it whether we understand what happens or not.

And when blessed the bread and wine become his body and blood - He is really present.

Now suposse we really disbelieve Christ here, will we still recieve the effects?

If a pastor did not believe would the bread and wine still become Christ’s body and blood nonetheless?

 

[SyCarl]

And when blessed the bread and wine become his body and blood - He is really present.

Now suposse we really disbelieve Christ here, will we still recieve the effects?

If a pastor did not believe would the bread and wine still become Christ’s body and blood nonetheless?

I believe so. And I believe the Catholic Church affirms that a validly ordained priest confects the sacrament whatever he believes. I, however, would not limit it to priests. If a pastor/minister/priests intends to do what Jesus commanded then God will accomplish His will.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Canto View Post
And when blessed the bread and wine become his body and blood - He is really present.

Now suposse we really disbelieve Christ here, will we still recieve the effects?

If a pastor did not believe would the bread and wine still become Christ’s body and blood nonetheless?

I believe so. And I believe the Catholic Church affirms that a validly ordained priest confects the sacrament whatever he believes. I, however, would not limit it to priests. If a pastor/minister/priests intends to do what Jesus commanded then God will accomplish His will.

**You believe if a Pastor does not believe that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood, it still happens anyway? Did I hear that right? Paul said: Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Are they not eating the bread unworthily by not believing?

When Jesus said: do this in remembrance of me, who was Jesus talking to? Was it His fledgling church leaders in His stead, or everyone? If you are right, why wasn’t this the case for the first300 years of Christianity, long before the Constantine legalized Christianity paving the way for the RCC? Surely the early church is the perfect model of what Jesus’ church was suppose to be until His return - right? Help me understand, because I am not following you? **

 

[SyCarl]

**You believe if a Pastor does not believe that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood, it still happens anyway? Did I hear that right? Paul said: Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Are they not eating the bread unworthily by not believing?

When Jesus said: do this in remembrance of me, who was Jesus talking to? Was it His fledgling church leaders in His stead, or everyone? If you are right, why wasn’t this the case for the first300 years of Christianity, long before the Constantine legalized Christianity paving the way for the RCC? Surely the early church is the perfect model of what Jesus’ church was suppose to be until His return - right? Help me understand, because I am not following you? **

It was not totally unheard of in the early church. Tertullian said:

Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the right of a priest.

(On Exhortation to Chastity, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/0405.htm

Thomas Aquinas has this to say.

I answer that, As stated above, since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ’s power. Now just as charity belongs to a man’s own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above; so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.

Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 64, Article 9
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q64_A9.html

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments act ex opere operato. The New Catholic Dictionary indicates:

A technical phrase used by theologians since the 13th century to signify that the sacraments produce grace of themselves, apart and distinct from the grace dependent upon the intention of the person conferring the sacrament; the latter effect is designated by the phrase ex opere operantis. The phrase is first found in the writings of Peter of Poitiers (c.1130-1215),

saints.sqpn.com/ncd06116.htm

 

[joe370]

Hey Carl…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
You believe if a Pastor does not believe that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood, it still happens anyway? Did I hear that right? Paul said: Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Are they not eating the bread unworthily by not believing?

What was your answer to the preceding question? I realize that the CC teaches that the Eucharistic Sacrament is valid even if the priest has doubts, or if there is no accessible joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, just as the Sacrament of Penance is valid even if the priest is sheep in wolves clothing,

When Jesus said: do this in remembrance of me, who was Jesus talking to? Was it His fledgling church leaders in His stead, or everyone? If you are right, why wasn’t this the case for the first300 years of Christianity, long before the Constantine legalized Christianity paving the way for the RCC? Surely the early church is the perfect model of what Jesus’ church was suppose to be until His return - right? Help me understand, because I am not following you?
It was not totally unheard of in the early church. Tertullian said:
Quote:
Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the right of a priest.
(On Exhortation to Chastity, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/0405.htm

Just prior to this he said: “It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order, which has established the difference between the Order and the laity.” The preceding was in case of necessity; it was the exception not the rule - right? To which church is he referring?

Thomas Aquinas has this to say.
Quote:
I answer that, As stated above, since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ’s power. Now just as charity belongs to a man’s own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above; so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.
Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 64, Article 9
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q64_A9.html

I agree with this statement, and yes, all people are sinners. Carl, what are the other essentials? I realize that an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament outside the historical church founded by God as long as they don’t have access to ecclesiastical Order of the CC? You and I both have access though. If the CC is not the historical church founded by Jesus, then which church, in the world today, is the historical church founded by Jesus? I realize that all churches make up the Mystical Body of Christ to which Christ is the Savior, but which one of these churches was founded by God on Pentecost, in Jerusalem in the 1st century? We know it’s not any of the Protestant churches for the simple fact that I can give you the name of the person who founded each and every church, and when, and it’s not the 1st century, in Jerusalem. Again, all of these protestant churches comprise the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, but none of them are the historical church founded by God in the 1st century, in Jerusalem. I am not taking anything away from any church founded by man as opposed to God; just looking for an honest answer: is the CC the historical church founded by Jesus Christ, in the 1st century? If not then perhaps you could give me the name of the man or men that founded the CC and the name of the historical church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33?

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments act ex opere operato. The New Catholic Dictionary indicates:

A technical phrase used by theologians since the 13th century to signify that the sacraments produce grace of themselves, apart and distinct from the grace dependent upon the intention of the person conferring the sacrament; the latter effect is designated by the phrase ex opere operantis. The phrase is first found in the writings of Peter of Poitiers (c.1130-1215),
saints.sqpn.com/ncd06116.htm

I totally agree that the efficacy of the Sacraments derive from the action of the Holy Spirit as opposed to the merits or holiness of the priest or minister. It’s all God!!!

 

[wisdomseeker]

There is only one Church. It consists in all people who truly believe. This is the body of Christ. There are many institutional churches in which these people can be found, including the Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches.

At Pentecost the body of Christ of was contained in one institution. That ended when the first split over doctrine occurred in the institutional church. Since that time the body has been spread over many institutions as more divisions have taken place. All of these churches can be said to descend from the original Church but none are identical with it. This is simply because prior to any split, the church contained those who held either view before the split, while after the split this would no longer be the case.

**Continuity in the name of the Catholic Church does not mean it is the same church as at Pentecost. It merely meant that one part of the split church retained the old name. A precedent for this can be seen in the divided kingdom of Israel. The north retained the name Israel but Judah had David’s line as its king. However the sons of Israel were found in both parts.**I know that I may be pounced on for this but I believe the present Catholic Church dates from Vatican 1 when papal infallibility was defined and the Old Catholic Churches left. The Catholic Church was not the same church as before the Council since the pre-Vatican 1 church contained those who accepted and those who did not accept papal infallibility.

this is no longer the case. when Jesus came He gathered all His people to be of one Faith, One Church. no matter how one try to explain why everybody is not in the same Church, it does not look good for those outside of the CC.

there is only one Truth to which we all must adhere. the CC is the same and always will be. she is the plan of God. the Plan of God has not failed.

"From East to West, a new Sacrifice will be offered in My Name, from sun up to sundown." this describes the CC.

 

[Tomster]

There is only one Church. It consists in all people who truly believe. This is the body of Christ. There are many institutional churches in which these people can be found, including the Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches.

At Pentecost the body of Christ of was contained in one institution. That ended when the first split over doctrine occurred in the institutional church. Since that time the body has been spread over many institutions as more divisions have taken place. All of these churches can be said to descend from the original Church but none are identical with it. This is simply because prior to any split, the church contained those who held either view before the split, while after the split this would no longer be the case.

Continuity in the name of the Catholic Church does not mean it is the same church as at Pentecost. It merely meant that one part of the split church retained the old name. A precedent for this can be seen in the divided kingdom of Israel. The north retained the name Israel but Judah had David’s line as its king. However the sons of Israel were found in both parts.

I know that I may be pounced on for this but I believe the present Catholic Church dates from Vatican 1 when papal infallibility was defined and the Old Catholic Churches left. The Catholic Church was not the same church as before the Council since the pre-Vatican 1 church contained those who accepted and those who did not accept papal infallibility.

“It consists in all people who truly believe.” - SyCarl

What do all of the people truly believe?

 

[Tomster]

There is only one Church. It consists in all people who truly believe. This is the body of Christ. There are many institutional churches in which these people can be found, including the Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches.

At Pentecost the body of Christ of was contained in one institution. That ended when the first split over doctrine occurred in the institutional church. Since that time the body has been spread over many institutions as more divisions have taken place. All of these churches can be said to descend from the original Church but none are identical with it. This is simply because prior to any split, the church contained those who held either view before the split, while after the split this would no longer be the case.

Continuity in the name of the Catholic Church does not mean it is the same church as at Pentecost. It merely meant that one part of the split church retained the old name. A precedent for this can be seen in the divided kingdom of Israel. The north retained the name Israel but Judah had David’s line as its king. However the sons of Israel were found in both parts.

I know that I may be pounced on for this but I believe the present Catholic Church dates from Vatican 1 when papal infallibility was defined and the Old Catholic Churches left. The Catholic Church was not the same church as before the Council since the pre-Vatican 1 church contained those who accepted and those who did not accept papal infallibility.

No, the Catholic Church of today is the same Church that existed prior to the 1st Vatican Council.

What is interesting though is that the Presbyterian church has morphed since John Calvin founded it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=426324&page=3

post #'s 31,32,33

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

The “reformed tradition” originates out of John Calvin’s Geneva and includes the reformed churches in Holland, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, and the Presbyterian Churches. The Presbyterian churches come out of Scottland where the Church of Scotland is the established church. They are called “Presbyterian” because they have governance that does not include bishops. The Presbyterians in the US are largely descended from the Scotish church.

By the way, the Anglican church in Scotland is called the Scotish Episcopal Church, and is not established. The Queen, when she goes to Scotland, is officially a member of the Church of Scotland.

Another question for my protestant brothers and sisters:

Where can the reformed church (which is the result of the protestant reformation of the catholic church, in the 16th century) - be found in the world today, and what are these doctrinal reforms embraced by the men who spearheaded the protestant reformation?

 

[joe370]

The “reformed tradition” originates out of John Calvin’s Geneva and includes the reformed churches in Holland, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, and the Presbyterian Churches. The Presbyterian churches come out of Scottland where the Church of Scotland is the established church. They are called “Presbyterian” because they have governance that does not include bishops. The Presbyterians in the US are largely descended from the Scotish church.

By the way, the Anglican church in Scotland is called the Scotish Episcopal Church, and is not established. The Queen, when she goes to Scotland, is officially a member of the Church of Scotland.

**Usbek, I am looking for the one reformed church of the one Catholic church! **