Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

[guanophore]

This does not come close to the unity prayed for John 17:21-23. There is no mention in this passage on unity that a pope or leader of the church is required for the unity that Christ prayed for.

It seems you have a skewed perception of the prayer, then, ja4. Jesus was clear that unity is found in HImself. He grafted Peter into His own rockness. All those who are in union with Peter are in union with Christ. Not only that, but Jesus prayed only for Peter not to fall. Therefore, all those who wish to be protected from falling must get included in the prayer for Peter.

 

[guanophore]

You’re right, but you and I will sharply disagree over the definition of “church.”

As I said in the era of Polycarp there were various churches, most of which simply do not exist today in their original form (or geographic location for that matter). In essence he tells us a church is a congregation, a fellowship of faithful in Christ, who appoint themselves elders (presbyters), pastors, and deacons.

If you believe this, then you are reading the Fathers very selectively. You are also assuming the Didache is written to laypersons, which it is not.

These ministers of faith, while appointed by the congregation in accordance with the rules set forth by the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, have authority over the congregation (and should be accorded the highest level of respect).

This simply does not make sense, because Paul was part of the Apostolic succession, and taught apostolic succession. In fact, he railed against “so called apostles” who were not authorized to teach or interfere.

However, Christians are to reproof each other in love in accordance with preserving the proper teachings of Christ as enumerated by His word – expressed in Holy Scripture.

I agree with this ,except that I don’ t confine HIs teachings to Scripture, and encouraging one another in the faith does not negate the authority appointed by Christ.

To imagine that every church in Christianity back then had direct contact with the Apostles, much less that their leaders were all ordained by the Apostles (and as such there is an unbroken episcopacy) is sheer Catholic fantasy.

Hmm. Do you think that God is unable to do this?

 

[guanophore]

Where can these “one whole set of beliefs” be found?

In the Catechism.

Is the Roman rite the same identical rite as what you belong to?

No.

Are you bound by the catechism of the Roman catholic church or does your rite have a different catechism?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. It is one, holy, and apostolic. Only one of the 23 Rites is “Roman”. It happens to be the largest, and most common in the West, so most protestants think it is the only Rite.

 

[guanophore]

Reformed protestants (Calvinists i.e. Presbyterians), Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc. also believe the Apostles creed. That is a very general statement of faith. It doesn’t touch on soteriology at all.

No, I think not. I think if we were to explore all these denominations, we would find in each areas where they depart from the Apostolic teaching. For example, a Baptist believes in “believers baptism”, where the Creed states that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, a baptist will say that an infant baptism is not valid, because the recipient could not make a profession of faith.

As I said before, just research the differences in soteriology between the Benedictines and Jesuits, Louis Molina and St. Augustine. The parallel (to some degree) the differences between Arminian and Calvinist soteriology.

I am curious to see you point out “differences in soteriology between Benedictines and Jesuits”. That would be very interesting grist for another thread.

Louis Molina and Augustine (as important as he is) do not define Catholic teaching. Catholicism is defined by the Teachings of Jesus, through the Apostles. Anyone who understands them differently has departed from the Catholic faith to some extent. Your efforts to “prove” dissention within Catholicism will not be effective, because there is a standard of faith that transcends all the individuals who partake of it.

 

[jerseygirl12491]

I believe personally that the Catholic church is the fullest and most complete of the Christian churches, followed very closely by Orthodox. That’s why it would be so beneficial for every party involved if we had reunification! I was reading recently in a book about the apparitions of the Madonna at Medjugorje (hence my signature:thumbsup: ) and here’s what I came across:

"Is there an essential difference among, say, Catholics and Protestants - in belonging to and praying in a particular church or community? The Virgin answered:

It is not equally efficacious to belong to or pray in any church or community, because the Holy Spirit grants his power differently among the churches and ministers. All believers do not pray the same way. It is intentional that all apparitions are under the auspices of the Catholic Church."

from the book “The Apparitions of Our Lady at Medjugorje” by Svetozar Kraljevic O.F.M.

Just a note: I found it interesting that, as seen at another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=109863&highlight=medjugorje
that there is an apparition of Mary to a Coptic Orthodox Church, which makes me wonder if the above quote is a poor translation, and the word actually means “visitations” like actually talking. I would look for the original text but there are so many messages from Medjugorje it would take months!

But again, I do think that many other churches also have truth in them, but I think the True Faith is found most of all in Catholic, and almost as much so in Orthodox, and noticeably less so in Protestant faiths. As I think was mentioned before, the proof is in the Miracles such as apparitions and recent acounts of rosaries miraculously changing colors during prayer (Catholic) and of yearly Holy Fire and icons streaming myrrh (Orthodox). All of this is compelling evidence God gives us to keep us on the right path, and like I said reunification would only strenghten miracles such as these.

 

[sola_scriptura]

No, I think not. I think if we were to explore all these denominations, we would find in each areas where they depart from the Apostolic teaching. For example, a Baptist believes in “believers baptism”, where the Creed states that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, a baptist will say that an infant baptism is not valid, because the recipient could not make a profession of faith.

I know as a reformed protestant we hold to the exact same Apostles Creed as the RCC does. The difference you note among Baptists is true (honestly I relied on Wikipedia for the non-reformed denominations … burned by Wiki again )

The worse thing of course is I new that full well & did something out of character (posted information from a source without even really thinking while typing – I’m a little preoccupied right now with other stuff, but my apologies).

My denomination’s position is as follows:

The church’s statement of faith can be summarized as: Evangelical, Reformed, and Catholic. We are a part of the catholic faith. The church happily receives the great Trinitarian and Christological creeds produced by the early church in its councils. These creeds represent the teaching of Holy Scripture. Accordingly, we receive the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds as a basis for instruction, and in worship as a way of confessing the Christian Faith.

I am curious to see you point out “differences in soteriology between Benedictines and Jesuits”. That would be very interesting grist for another thread.

Louis Molina and Augustine (as important as he is) do not define Catholic teaching. Catholicism is defined by the Teachings of Jesus, through the Apostles. Anyone who understands them differently has departed from the Catholic faith to some extent. Your efforts to “prove” dissention within Catholicism will not be effective, because there is a standard of faith that transcends all the individuals who partake of it.

Sure, their differences are not in the core fundamental doctrine found in the creeds, it is in their soteriology.

Molina is the founder of “Molinism” quite an interesting view that tries to synthesize the tension between free will and divine omniscience (it is also a view shared by protestant theologians such as William Lane Craig, who I find interesting though I disagree with him and Molina). Here’s a statement from newadvent.org:

*The name used to denote one of the systems which purpose to reconcile grace and free will. This system was first developed by Luis de Molina, and was adopted in its essential points by the Society of Jesus. It is opposed by the Thomistic doctrine of grace – the term Thomism has a somewhat wider meaning – whose chief exponent is the Dominican Bañez. *

newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

So we see some disagreement between the Molinist school of thought & the Thomistic (St. Thomas Aquinas) with regard to their respective doctrines of grace. Here’s a more detailed view into these doctrines (follow the links if you’re interested, newadvent does an excellent job):

*Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands pre-eminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichæeans, but insists against the Semipelageians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men’s wills by His omnipotence and omniscience–through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine’s teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. *

newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#chr

The Dominican or Thomist solution, as it is called, teaches in brief that God premoves each man in all his acts to the line of conduct which he subsequently adopts. It holds that this premotive decree inclines man’s will with absolute certainty to the side decreed, but that God adapts this premotion to the nature of the being thus premoved. It argues that as God possesses infinite power He can infallibly premove man–who is by nature a free cause–to choose a particular course freely, whilst He premoves the lower animals in harmony with their natures to adopt particular courses by necessity. Further, this premotive decree being inevitable though adapted to suit the free nature of man, provides a medium in which God foresees with certainty the future free choice of the human being. The premotive decree is thus prior in order of thought to the Divine cognition of man’s future actions. Theologians and philosophers of the Jesuit School, frequently styled Molinists, though they do not accept the whole of Molina’s teaching and generally prefer Francisco Suárez’s exposition of the theory, deem the above solution unsatisfactory. It would, they readily admit, provide sufficiently for the infallibility of the Divine foreknowledge and also for God’s providential control of the world’s history; but, in their view, it fails to give at the same time an adequately intelligible account of the freedom of the human will. According to them, the relation of the Divine action to man’s will should be conceived rather as of a concurrent than of a premotive character; and they maintain that God’s knowledge of what a free being would choose, if the necessary conditions were supplied, must be deemed logically prior to any decree of concurrence or premotion in respect to that act of choice.

newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#chr

 

[wisdomseeker]

It seems you have a skewed perception of the prayer, then, ja4. Jesus was clear that unity is found in HImself. He grafted Peter into His own rockness. All those who are in union with Peter are in union with Christ. Not only that, but Jesus prayed only for Peter not to fall. Therefore, all those who wish to be protected from falling must get included in the prayer for Peter.

 

[justasking4]

It seems you have a skewed perception of the prayer, then, ja4. Jesus was clear that unity is found in HImself. He grafted Peter into His own rockness. All those who are in union with Peter are in union with Christ. Not only that, but Jesus prayed only for Peter not to fall. Therefore, all those who wish to be protected from falling must get included in the prayer for Peter.

What do you mean by “all those who wish to be protected from falling must get included in the prayer for Peter” from John 17:21-23?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I know as a reformed protestant we hold to the exact same Apostles Creed as the RCC does.

Hello sola_scriptura

The words,* “I believe in the holy catholic church”*, is in the Apostles Creed. In your opinion, who or what is the, “holy catholic church”?

Additionally, and you probably already know this but the Catholic Profession of Faith, recited at every Catholic Mass is the Nicene Creed and not the Apostles Creed.

What are your feelings concerning the Nicene Creed?

 

[ChristianRoots]

What Sacred Tradition are you referring to? Can you give me a couple of examples as it relates to the canon?

The compiling of the New Testament itself. Let’s start with that. That is an example of Sacred Tradition. Agree? If not, how do you account for the compiling of the New Testament?

The date of Christ’ birth is not a doctrinal issue. How He was conceived is.

If you believe the New Testament doesn’t make it a doctrinal issue, why then do you acknowledge it? Shouldn’t you only acknowledge God’s Word? Or, are you saying not all of God’s Words are doctrinally-based?

Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura so, ulitimately, it is not whether an issue is doctrinal or not but if it is biblical or not. Agree? If not, doesn’t that mean that not everything can be tested against Scripture?

Your celebration of Christmas on Dec. 25 must be tested against Scripture, and since it fails that test, I must ask you, How is this not an example of a tradition of “men”?

Not really. When a divine appears to humans there is almost always in Scripture that i can think of --fear. That’s why the angel tells her not to fear. It is a normal reaction under these kinds of circumstances. It was not unbiblical.

You are confusing the first two verses of that passage. Mary was not afraid by the angel’s appearance. There was no fear involved whatsoever. She was afraid at how the angel greeted her. This is a biblical fact. Again, why do you think the title “Full of Grace” troubled Mary so much?

I don’t recall saying that. Do you have the quote which makes you say that?

Sorry, I thought you did.

 

[catholiconce]

Why do you start a thread on Catholism in a forum devoted to nonCatholic religions?

Just to push people’s buttons. !! If you look at this site some folks have way to much time on their hands. The time spent attacking others could be put to good use. For example Next Saturday I am working on a habitat for humanites house. Thrivent Finacial a Lutheran group is helping build these homes. SO instead of spending my time on this crazy computer spewing out half truths about my christians brothers and sisters beliefs
I will be helping them.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Just to push people’s buttons. !! If you look at this site some folks have way to much time on their hands. The time spent attacking others could be put to good use. For example Next Saturday I am working on a habitat for humanites house. Thrivent Finacial a Lutheran group is helping build these homes. SO instead of spending my time on this crazy computer spewing out half truths about my christians brothers and sisters beliefs
I will be helping them.

http://hydrogencommerce.com/images/Nobel.gif

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[distracted]

SO instead of spending my time on this crazy computer spewing out half truths about my christians brothers and sisters beliefs

could you be more specific??

 

[Jimmy_B]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)





“if ever there were men and women in need of the Eucharist, the warriors aboard Camp Fallujah are prime candidates.” Here
http://www.catholicmil.org/images/uploads/Image/blogs/ltcolp/August 2007 Fr_ John in Iraq.JPG

Celebrating Ash Wednesday in Iraq - here
http://milblogging.com/popups/images/Personal/ashwednesday.jpg

****Please pray for all of the brave men and women who are making tremendous sacrifices and will be away from their loved-ones this weekend (and longer), because they have chosen to put their lives on the line… for all of us. Also, pray for the families who are suffering the separation of their loved-ones, they too, are making a great sacrifice… ****

May God bless them all and bring them home safely!

 

[t68ware]

No, I think not. I think if we were to explore all these denominations, we would find in each areas where they depart from the Apostolic teaching. For example, a Baptist believes in “believers baptism”, where the Creed states that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, a baptist will say that an infant baptism is not valid, because the recipient could not make a profession of faith.

I am curious to see you point out “differences in soteriology between Benedictines and Jesuits”. That would be very interesting grist for another thread.

Louis Molina and Augustine (as important as he is) do not define Catholic teaching. Catholicism is defined by the Teachings of Jesus, through the Apostles. Anyone who understands them differently has departed from the Catholic faith to some extent. Your efforts to “prove” dissention within Catholicism will not be effective, because there is a standard of faith that transcends all the individuals who partake of it.

I think, wtih all due respect, you are wrong in your statement that Protestant groups don’t believe in the Apostles Creed. You state “the Creed states there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” The Creed does not state that. It says:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

There is nothing in the Creed that states baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. In fact, there is nothing in the Creed about baptism. It says we believe in “the forgiveness of sins,” which all Protestants do. You cannot read baptism into the Creed.

 

[nsper7]

Hello sola_scriptura

The words,* “I believe in the holy catholic church”*, is in the Apostles Creed. In your opinion, who or what is the, “holy catholic church”?

Additionally, and you probably already know this but the Catholic Profession of Faith, recited at every Catholic Mass is the Nicene Creed and not the Apostles Creed.

What are your feelings concerning the Nicene Creed?

Let an Anglican take a shot at it, for we tread the Nicene Creed at every Sunday’s Eucharist (or even Mass if you wish to call it that). The ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ is the Church founded by Christ, the Body of Christ. It is made up of all those Saved by the Blood of Christ, but all those we might call ‘Christians’.

The OHCAC is not limited to any single Rite, sect, denomination or what have you. It is the true Catholic (Universal) Church. I hope and believe that Roman Catholics are a part of the OHCAC.

In an earlier discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the Pope’s role as Bishop of Rome and, perhaps, Primate of Italy are roles with in the OHCAC, and thus it makes the Pope, in a certain guise, a truly Catholic (Universal) figure.

As I have also admitted, prior to the Great Schism (East-West), the Roman Catholic Church appears to have been the primary, if not singular, expression of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. From the Great Schism to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was the primary expression of the OHCAC in the West.

EDIT: Jimmy B, I have been meaning to tell you this: I think you’d make a great Anglican. (That is a compliment BTW)

 

[Jimmy_B]

Let an Anglican take a shot at it, for we tread the Nicene Creed at every Sunday’s Eucharist (or even Mass if you wish to call it that). The ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ is the Church founded by Christ, the Body of Christ. It is made up of all those Saved by the Blood of Christ, but all those we might call ‘Christians’.

The OHCAC is not limited to any single Rite, sect, denomination or what have you. It is the true Catholic (Universal) Church. I hope and believe that Roman Catholics are a part of the OHCAC.

In an earlier discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the Pope’s role as Bishop of Rome and, perhaps, Primate of Italy are roles with in the OHCAC, and thus it makes the Pope, in a certain guise, a truly Catholic (Universal) figure.

As I have also admitted, prior to the Great Schism (East-West), the Roman Catholic Church appears to have been the primary, if not singular, expression of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. From the Great Schism to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was the primary expression of the OHCAC in the West.

EDIT: Jimmy B, I have been meaning to tell you this: I think you’d make a great Anglican. (That is a compliment BTW)

NIce post and thanks but I’m staying right where I’m at…but you can come and join us…

 

[nsper7]

NIce post and thanks but I’m staying right where I’m at…but you can come and join us…

I assumed you’d say that. For the next couple of weeks I will actually be attending a Roman Catholic Mass because my campus’s Episcopal Chapel House is closed for the semester break. After talking with the Priest at the RC Church, he said that, under the circumstances and as long as my conscience is good, I can receive Eucharist at the Mass and he also said, in general, it is possible for me to partake of the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation (the ECUSA has that Sacrament as well, but it is easier to go to the RC Church since they do it regularly).

The only warning that the Priest gave me is that if they notice someone seeking to partake of Roman Catholic Sacraments ‘too often’, they may assume that that is a sign I wish to become Roman Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

I think, wtih all due respect, you are wrong in your statement that Protestant groups don’t believe in the Apostles Creed. You state “the Creed states there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” The Creed does not state that. It says:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

There is nothing in the Creed that states baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. In fact, there is nothing in the Creed about baptism. It says we believe in “the forgiveness of sins,” which all Protestants do. You cannot read baptism into the Creed.

Thanks. I obviously had another creed in my head.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hello sola_scriptura

The words,* “I believe in the holy catholic church”*, is in the Apostles Creed. In your opinion, who or what is the, “holy catholic church”?

Additionally, and you probably already know this but the Catholic Profession of Faith, recited at every Catholic Mass is the Nicene Creed and not the Apostles Creed.

What are your feelings concerning the Nicene Creed?

we gladly receive the Nicene Creed as well.