Who is My Brother?

[Eden_of_Mind]

I apologize, but for any who may be just venturing into this discussion and are new to it (or have been here before but do not know of this), because the number of posts has grown so large, I would like to help direct you to important additions which would quickly clarify the issue.

Thus far, the establishment of the facts behind the vital question of this thread can be found in posts #157-163.

This I hope, will help others navigate their way and facilitate any future dialogue. I will, of course, repost this as needed as the discussion progresses.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

mercygate:

The reason it is important to be able to identify THE true Church – is because Jesus promised to build his Church and that the netherworld should not prevail against it. Therefore, if you eliminate the Catholic Church based on the single criterion you elect as exclusionary, you must either identify something else as the true church or you must deny that Jesus did what he said he would do. If he has failed to fulfill his promise to build his Church, then he is not the Messiah, and he certainly is not God.

Mercygate, don’t we need to explore sufficiently this problem, first, before we begin a discussion that presumes that Rome is not the true Church? I would be happy to discuss this with you on another thread once we’ve come to some sort of end to this one. I haven’t heard from anyone on the evidence I gathered.

 

[mercygate]

Eden of Mind:

Mercygate, don’t we need to explore sufficiently this problem, first, before we begin a discussion that presumes that Rome is not the true Church? I would be happy to discuss this with you on another thread once we’ve come to some sort of end to this one. I haven’t heard from anyone on the evidence I gathered.

This whole discussion has “presumed” that Rome is not the True Church based on your criterion.

The question of what the True Church is arises naturally from that conclusion. It is all one issue. They cannot be separated.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

mercygate:

This whole discussion has “presumed” that Rome is not the True Church based on your criterion.

The question of what the True Church is arises naturally from that conclusion. It is all one issue. They cannot be separated.

Indeed, you’re right that these issues cannot be separated in a logical sense, as one leads to the other. Nevertheless, when I say “presumes,” what I mean is that I do not wish to part ways with this discussion (as though it were settled, which would be arrogant of me to “presume”) and go off to discuss my views on the true nature of the Church when another view, the Roman Catholic view, has not been sufficiently explored.

I honestly am not trying to imply any duplicity on anyone’s part here, but why do you not wish to remark at all on the recent evidence compiled? Why, instead, do you wish to discuss something else? I’m sure you have your own reasons but the silence I’ve suddenly received on this thread is a bit strange.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

mercygate:

Therefore, if you eliminate the Catholic Church based on the single criterion you elect as exclusionary. . …

I understand that it is something of a habit for you to think of the Roman Catholic church as the “Catholic Church” which the early fathers spoke of. I, however, do not assume this. I have not attempted to “eliminate the Catholic Church” with any criteria. The issue is whether the church which is usually identified by the title or moniker of, “Roman Catholic,” is synonymous with the true Catholic Church.

I do not deny the existence of the true Catholic Church.

 

[BlackKnight]

Eden of Mind:

I’m sorry… I obviously cannot speak for CorneliusBottom, but you’ve guessed wrong about me.

Then maybe you should be more honest and upfront and specify, here and in your personal profile, exactly what your religious affiliation is since it makes no difference to your membership but simply allows other members to have some idea where you are coming from with all this.

No one should have to “guess”.

As for the idea that excommunication could not carry a death penalty, I would say that you ignore a critical passage of scripture in this regard: **Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, 2 And by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? 4 Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.

6 And the young men rising up, removed him, and carrying him out, buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in. 8 And Peter said to her: Tell me, woman, whether you sold the land for so much? And she said: Yea, for so much. 9 And Peter said unto her: Why have you agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. 10 Immediately she fell down before his feet, and gave up the ghost. And the young men coming in, found her dead: and carried her out, and buried her by her husband.

11 And there came great fear upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things.**

Peter knew at the moment that he opened his mouth to these two that it was a death sentence. :bigyikes:

All this rhetoric of yours aside… Nothing changes the fact that the Catholic Church maintains to this day the same truths of the early church. Deny that if you please, but it’s the case :yup:

I don’t see any angry people on this thread, but I do see you repeating the same rhetoric again and again.

Your assessment of CM’s disdain for your thread is erroneous. You seem to have “guessed wrong” about him as well.

 

[mercygate]

Eden of Mind:

I understand that it is something of a habit for you to think of the Roman Catholic church as the “Catholic Church” which the early fathers spoke of.

For some of us, it is hardly a “habit.” Rather it was a hard recognition forced by study of the historic record found in the early Church Fathers.

I, however, do not assume this. I have not attempted to “eliminate the Catholic Church” with any criteria.

Um. What did I miss? You have done nothing but pose questions which presume that killing heretics is wrong (which I have not conceded as indisputable given exigencies of time, place and culture) and that this one practice excludes the Church from consideration as Christ’s true Church. That criterion also excludes every Reformation denomination.

The issue is whether the church which is usually identified by the title or moniker of, “Roman Catholic,” is synonymous with the true Catholic Church.

I do not deny the existence of the true Catholic Church.

We would say that you *do *deny it because the “true Church” which Jesus promised to build must be found in communion with the See of Peter (built “upon this rock”), or else Jesus lied, and he is not the Messiah. Looking around for candidates to fulfill these points, we find that the “true Catholic Church” must be coterminous with the Catholic Church centered in Rome since the thread of history leaves us with no other options. Catholics believe that the Church exists in history and that in order to be “a light on a hill” for Christ to draw all men to himself, she must be identifiable: Jesus had a physical body when he walked among us as a man; he must have a physical body today.

To claim that there is such a thing as a “true Catholic Church” while denying that the Church centered in Rome is that true Church, one must either identify another church which possesses the four marks of the true church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) or, by admitting that there is no** identifiable** “true” Church, accuse Jesus of lying when he told us he would build *his *Church on Peter and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

…Whatever I may think of the limits Rome was allowed to go, none of this has been established in discussion (i.e., I may be wrong) and it really is not as clear, I think to everyone here, as the obvious truth that Christ’s Church cannot kill His people.

I am still not sure how you can make the assertion that the Institution is the same as it’s members… Please help me here.

The Catholic Church and everything about it would exist wether or not a single person lived on this earth. The Truth of it would still be, and it will be until the end of time.

No Catholic lives up to the “perfection” of the True Church. Does that make any of us less Catholic? I guess in a way it does.

But does the fact that we do not live up to the absolute perfection of Truth of the Church, make the Catholic Church less True? Absolutely NOT.

There are people who claim to be of Christ’s Church who kill people even today. This fact does not discount the Truth of the Church.

Even Church leaders still retain their free will. Occupying a seat of authority in the Catholic Church does not gain you a constant direct line to the Divine- that He may work through you.

Even our Pope- who sits in the Holy Office- ordained by Christ Himself is still a man.

Not a single soul that has generously offered their time to us all has challenged this.

Actually there have been several. In fact there were other, on topic questions posed to you which are still unanswered.

I think we all know that I am not arriving at some absurd or borderline truth that could “go either way,” so to speak.

You have asserted that the members of Christ’s Church would immediately recognize their Brother in Christ and would not do them harm (based on I John 3:13-17). And you have used this assertion to deny the station of the Catholic Church as the One True Church.

But the verse still only states that a true member of Christ’s Church would not slay their brothers in Christ. Those who do- are not members in good standing of the True Church. Which is as true today as it was in the 1400’s or in 33 A.D.

One cannot conclude that an action by one of the above sinners would lead to the dissolution of Christ’s Church- even if the sinner proclaimed the Church as his authority for such an action.

Is there anyone willing to try to defend the view that the true Church of Christ can kill His people which He purchased with His blood simply because of their beliefs?

Not me. Again- members of the True Church can kill people in the Church’s name. This doesn’t dissolve the True Authority of the Church.

Can the true Church founded by Christ sanction the killing of faithful Roman Catholics?

Can it? Well members of it obviously did in It’s name.

Rome has sanctioned methods which even the church understood would make this inevitable.

Please help explain to me how a living Church, whose earthly imperfect members have no bearing on Her Truth, can be changed by those members.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Thank you, Shiann, for your heartfelt and very helpful response. I think your responses help to move this discussion forward. I will, with your permission, group some of the similar things you say together to consider them and answer them more effectively.

Shiann:

You have asserted that the members of Christ’s Church would immediately recognize their Brother in Christ and would not do them harm (based on I John 3:13-17). And you have used this assertion to deny the station of the Catholic Church as the One True Church.

No, dear lady, this has never been my position. Please, be patient with me and I shall explain but I must do a better job of it than I have because this misunderstanding is still prevalent.

I won’t distract you with what I think individual Christians are capable of (or even groups of them), because that has never been my focus. I do not even think that Rome teaches, necessarily, that the officials in a church at any single moment in history are infallible… However, Rome teaches that the Church itself is infallible. Now, if you’ve read the series of posts I spent many an hour crafting with direct quotations from several of Rome’s ecumenical councils, papal bulls, papal letters, articles from EWTN on this subject and scholarly resources (posts #157-163), then you will see that my concern is not what individuals do on their own but what an entire institution like the church of Rome has encouraged, taught, sanctioned, even commanded, defined and put into practice.

If it is your contention that Rome itself, as a church, is not represented by its ecumenical councils (which are supposedly infallibly guided by the Spirit), papal bulls, encyclicals, by common and sanctioned practice, by teaching and allowance for hundreds of years (from the 12th to the 17th centuries), then I cannot understand what it would mean to say that Rome teaches this or that or that the true Church is “infallible in all points.”

I am not sure of this, but some of the people on this board seem to hold a picture of the true Roman Catholic church as if it were a separate entity, kept pure from the taint of everything that ever happens in its name. Nothing Rome seems to pass as law, nothing which is enacted and put into practice, nothing which is commanded, even if by infallible councils which themselves claim to be infallible and lawful, ever seems in the end to have anything to do with Rome itself. Rome, in effect, seems to be only whatever she is, today… (and, tomorrow, she won’t even be that). Perhaps there is some small truth to the saying I keep hearing from certain Roman Catholic groups… “Today’s heresy is tomorrow’s dogma.”

How many ecumenical councils, papal bulls, encyclicals, centuries of common and sanctioned practice, centuries of teaching, opinion and attitudes does it take to equal the actions and attitudes and teachins of a Church and no longer merely of “indivduals”? Is anything taught by “individuals” today really the teachings of Rome or can we sweep them aside as the mere thoughts and attitudes of individuals? Did anyone for 500 years during that time agree with you that this was merely a passing fad in Rome’s history? Or did they see all of it (when passed as law and especialy when claimed as an infallible rule of faith and morals) as the teachings and practice of an infallible church?

I just don’t think that the ruling of ecumenical councils, if nothing else, could be seen as the work of mere individuals, at least not in Rome’s way of thinking.

(…continued…)

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Shiann:

I am still not sure how you can make the assertion that the Institution is the same as it’s members… Please help me here.

I hope that, in the evidence gathered in the series of posts #157-163, which you may not have read through as yet, you will find out why I believe Rome (and not individual members) is responsible. Perhaps you could explain, if I am ignorant of this, why the official, supposedly authoritative councils and bulls I’ve mentioned and quoted from are not reflective of the position of Rome but merely of a few “individuals.”

The Catholic Church vs. the Roman Catholic church

Please, if you wouldn’t mind for the sake of avoiding confusion, let us no longer refer to the Roman Catholic church in question begging terms of “the Catholic Church,” as though it were already agreed that Rome is the true Church. I understand that you think Rome is. However, let us just say that, when I question whether Rome has erred or whether Rome is the “Catholic Church” established by Christ, I am NOT suggesting that the true “Catholic Church” does not exist nor that Christ is a liar or has deceived us or that the true Church has failed, etc.

I am merely suggesting that Rome has been misidentified as the true Church. Does everyone here really read the references in the early fathers to a universal (i.e., Catholic) Church as *necessarily]/I] speaking of the church or institution that goes by the name, “Roman Catholic”?

At any rate, as this is the question before us, whether Rome is the same as the true “Catholic Church,” I cannot simply assume with everyone else that to question the actions of Rome in the past is to question Christ Himself.

But does the fact that we do not live up to the absolute perfection of Truth of the Church, make the Catholic Church less True? Absolutely NOT.

Indeed, Absolutely NOT. Do you see how I can agree with you and still, at the same time, at least question whether Rome is that true Church?

Even Church leaders still retain their free will. Occupying a seat of authority in the Catholic Church does not gain you a constant direct line to the Divine- that He may work through you.

Even our Pope- who sits in the Holy Office- ordained by Christ Himself is still a man

.

Indeed, and if this were a matter of a single Pope’s immorality or the immorality of a group of men, then you would be correct and I would drop the issue with the clear answer before me. I could go no further because the reasoning is sound. A man does not his church make. However, when a Pope writes issues a bull and several Popes follow him in succession with bulls supporting and furthering that initial Pope’s work, when supposedly infallible ecumenical councils issue decrees, then I am supposing that this has left the simple issue of the opinions or actions of an “individual” and reached the level of the decrees of a church.

You’re absolutely correct that, IF a sinner merely claimed that he had the backing of Rome when he did evil, this would not avail him anything and would not reflect back upon Rome itself… but only IF that were not true and he did not really have the backing of Rome.

But what if he did? What if, in doing evil, he was acting as a faithful Roman Catholic? What would that say about Rome?

I don’t think a truly “living Church” could be made imperfect by the actions of its members. What I question is whether Rome is that “living Church”. Thus far, I don’t think Rome is that “living Church” and I think we must look elsewhere.

It would be a simple act of begginig the question to suggest that Rome cannot be guilty of anything, no matter how many of Rome’s ecumenical councils have spoken, simply because Rome is

the “living Church” established by Christ. That is to say nothing more than that Rome cannot be wrong because Rome is right.

Is that really your answer? Have I understood you correctly?

If you believe that Christ said, basically, Rome is always right, I would suggest that this is a rather blatant misrepresentation of His words about a Church that began without “Rome” having any part in it.*

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I want to be sure I understand your main argument.

Are you saying that the verses I’ve quoted from John 16:2-3, which speak of individuals who will kill Christ’s people and think that they are “offering service to God” as they do this but who do not know the Father nor the Son, are really talking about individuals only and cannot be established as a fundamental character of Christ’s Church as well?

In other words, do you think that, although individuals who kill His people allegedly in HIs naame are not of Him but a church that does the same cannot be judged by this same standard?

OR

Is it your contention simply that, though Christ’s Church would never sanction the death of Christ’s people, Rome itself has never sanctioned this in its infallible teachings or decrees?

 

[Shiann]

Sir,

Before I go into your post, please note that you came to a Catholic site, and are asserting a certain claim, more specifically for some reason (having to do with the Inquisition), that the Roman Catholic Church is not the True Church.

You have previously requested that we not refer to them as one in the same, but I will have to bow out of the discussion if that is the case.

You have yet to prove to me how your view of the Roman Catholic Church has lost it’s place as the one True Church. And it is your job in this debate to do so.

That said, I will continue to refer to them as one in the same as I discuss this with you, because as of this moment in the debate- they still are the same. My apologies for any problems this causes you.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

mercygate:

For some of us, it is hardly a “habit.” Rather it was a hard recognition forced by study of the historic record found in the early Church Fathers.

Yes, I’m sorry. What I meant was simply that it has become a habit for you to equate “Catholic” with “Roman Catholic” in the words of others so that, if I question whether Rome is the true Church, you conclude that I’m calling Christ a liar.

You have done nothing but pose questions which presume that killing heretics is wrong (which I have not conceded as indisputable given exigencies of time, place and culture)

Really, mercygate, we must be more careful. I did not and have not been arguing simply that “killing heretics is wrong.” I have argued that supporting the killing of Christians is wrong, in any form this may take, such as sanctioning methods or passing laws or codifying anything at all which would make inevitable the killing of Christians. I even took special care to separate the difference between “heretics” and “separated brethren” according to your statements. I listed a group of people who would fall under the category of “separated brethren,” “faithful Roman Catholics” and “penitent souls who return to Rome,” each of whom have been killed inevitably by Rome’s methods, according to the documents I’ve provided in posts #157-163. It’s all there, if you will read through it… I’d very much like to discuss that with you.

Is Rome the true Church when Rome sanctions methods which will kill faithful Roman Catholics? I can answer, “No,” to this question without hesitation. Would you render an unambiguous, “No,” to this as well?

Has Christ not commanded that we let our yes be yes and our no, no?

We would say that you *do *deny it because the “true Church” which Jesus promised to build must be found in communion with the See of Peter (built “upon this rock”). . . . the thread of history leaves us with no other options.

I understand that, outside of this discussion, you’ve examined a great many other issues. On the other hand, I simply don’t assume that my interpretations of history and my use of logic, etc., are infallible. My conclusions and yours are no better than the arguments upon which they are founded. Thus, I came to this forum looking for someone to help me see the answer to a disturbing question. I came to see whether any could give me solid correction.

I am now greeted not merely with the assumption that Rome is infallible but your private studies are infallible as well. As I assume that there is a possibility (even if small) that you have erred in those other areas or that you have not been sufficiently precise or careful, then I cannot assume (and none should) that the dilemma posed here is sufficently resolved by saying, “Rome must be the true Church because my other studies have attested to this.”

Apparently, Rome teaches that the early fathers agreed that the true Church is infallible “in all points” of faith and morals. Therefore, on Rome’s reasoning from history, unless I have missed something, Rome cannot be that “infallible” Church which the fathers attested to.

To claim that there is such a thing as a “true Catholic Church” while denying that the Church centered in Rome is that true Church, one must either identify another church. . .

You see, that is precisely where you misunderstand me. I haven’t made this claim. The claim I’ve made is that Rome SEEMS not be the true Church, based upon the evidence examined thus far, and then I have left it up to those who might have some other ideas to explain to me where this might be incorrect. You continue to treat me as though I am here to make the argument that Rome most definitely cannot be the true Church but I am not presuming infallibility in my historical analysis.

I am asking, if others can see some error in my thinking, to point it out to me. That is why I do not and should not go chasing after some attempt to establish another idea of the Church when I haven’t sufficiently explored this one. You are assuming that I have some kind of ulterior motive here. Is it possible that I’m just asking others who may have more knowledge to enlighten me with their arguments and then examining those arguments and continuing the exchange?

That is, in my opinion, an important path to learning. I hope that helps to clarify where I’m coming from.

 

[esr]

EOM,

I must have missed something because I thought you posted that you were going to answer my direct questions with a direct answer. However, I have not seen it yet.

I will answer you direct question: I did not read your long posts regarding church documents. The reason I did not read your posts is because my questions assume for the sake of argument that what you posted was in fact true. So, I will ask again:

1. If the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Catholic Church, then what is the true Catholic Church?
2. What if God allowed the Roman Catholic Church to kill heretics in order to preserve the truth in true Roman Catholic Church?

In addition, as I read John 16:2-3,

“They will expel you from the synagogues: in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God. They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me.”

it appears to me that our Lord was referring to the Jewish people of that time killing the Jewish Christians of that time mistakenly thinking that they were doing it to honor God. The Jewish people did this because they do not believe/know Jesus and thus did not believe/know God.

Your direct answer to my questions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Shiann:

Sir,

Before I go into your post, please note that you came to a Catholic site, and are asserting a certain claim, more specifically for some reason (having to do with the Inquisition), that the Roman Catholic Church is not the True Church.

You have previously requested that we not refer to them as one in the same, but I will have to bow out of the discussion if that is the case.

Again, dear lady, my words were not sufficient to express clearly my meaning. I apologize. I do not mean to suggest that you can never refer to your church as “Catholic” or “the Catholic Church.”

The only thing I was trying to suggest is that it is obviously not sufficient to respond to evidence brought forward showing Rome to have been officially in favor of methods which would slaughter innocent people (even by Rome’s standards) with the counter-claim, “Yes, but ‘the Catholic Church’ can’t be guilty of this because she is Christ’s Church and that would mean that Christ deceived us.”

Please, allow me to offer you an illustration that might help clarify how I hear this. There are many Pentacostals and Charismatics out there right now who believe that, through their “prophets” and what not, they have been assured by GOD that some reward is coming their way or that they shall receive “healing” if they only send money, etc… When this does not happen, they do not doubt their interpretation, rather, they blame GOD for not having kept His promise to them.

You and I would be swift to conclude that, in their arrogance, they have presumed that GOD promised them any such thing.

In a similar way (meaning that I know the analogy is not really perfectly equivalent), I am told that to acknowledge that the evidence concerning the actions of the Roman church make doubtful its claim to be the true Church is to make GOD or Christ a liar. There are many things that could have gone wrong between me, you, the study or analysis or claims of others, the Roman church, etc., that would occur to me long before anything about Christ’s being a liar came to be considered. Indeed, if nothing else seemed wrong and I was approached with the “possibility” that Christ lied, I would start over and assume I had made a mistake somewhere.

Christ is not a liar, but to believe that does not logically force me to accept that Rome is the true Church.

So, refer to Rome as “Catholic” or “the Catholic Church” as you like. It is not the label or the reference but the implications and the question begging that I am asking us all to be cautious about.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

esr:

EOM. . . I will answer you direct question: I did not read your long posts regarding church documents. The reason I did not read your posts is because my questions assume for the sake of argument that what you posted was in fact true.

Sir, I sincerely ask you to forgive me but you have woefully misunderstood my purposes here, just as mercygate has, I think. You seem to think that I’ve come onto this forum to offer an argument about what must be true of Rome. I have not. I have come here to discuss what I believe I have learned and to receive instruction from others (in the form of argumentation) who may be more knowledgeable than myself on this matter to clarify an issue that has been troubling for me in the face of claims from Roman Catholic people whom I feel affection for and because of a desire to know the Truth.

In other words, I am not here to submit an argument about what must be true of Rome but to flesh out further than I have what is true of Rome.

In that case, if you are unwilling to simply read what I have researched and quotations from the documents of ecumenical councils and the like that I’ve provided, then you cannot obviously help me to find out the truth about Rome’s claims to be the true Church.

I am not here to instruct you. I am here to dialogue with those who are willing to examine this problem honestly and carefully with me.

1. What if God allowed the Roman Catholic Church to kill heretics in order to preserve the truth in true Roman Catholic Church?

First of all, I have not argued that the killing of “heretics” is what invalidates the claims of the Roman church. I have argued that sanctioning and supporting (even compelling) the killing of innocent people, even faithful Roman Catholics, is what invalidates Rome’s claims. I take it, from Rome’s description of the nature of the true Church as “infallible,” that this is not possible for the true Church to do and Christ would not guide His true Church into such villainy.

In addition, as I read John 16:2-3,

“They will expel you from the synagogues: in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God. They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me.”

it appears to me that our Lord was referring to the Jewish people of that time killing the Jewish Christians of that time mistakenly thinking that they were doing it to honor God.

There are two problems with this claim. First, you would soon find that such an exegetical principle destroys the revelational character of the Scriptures. The Bible is prone to speaking beyond its immediate context and this is what makes it the Bible (revelation) to us. If we should assume that any statement in Scripture written or spoken to a specifically identified audience is to be isolated ONLY to that context and cannot extend beyond it to all times, then nothing in the Scriptures would apply to us, today, because it was all written to a specific audience. The Old and New Testaments would be worthless, except perhaps in regards to purely academic interests for research purposes.

Second, Christ explained that these Jewish religious authorities, who believed themselves to be killing Christ’s people in “service to God,” did so precisely “because they have not known the Father nor Me.” The description is not just a historical reference but also a doctrinal teaching, an explanation as to the motive or inward character of the people who will engage in this activity, even for what they consider to be the “highest” reasons.

If it is your suggestion that this passages forces us to strictly assume that only Jewish leaders who kill Christ’s people do so because they do not know Him but, on the contrary, other religious leaders may kill Christ’s people with impunity but still be said to know the Father and the Son, then my earlier reference to I John 3:13-17 refutes this…

Indeed, do I really even need to refute this kind of assumption?

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

esr:

The reason I did not read your posts is because my questions assume for the sake of argument that what you posted was in fact true.

To make sure no one misunderstands, I suppose what I’m trying to say in all this is simply this…

I don’t want to pretend that I’m right and then talk about something else. I want to find out whether my thinking is correct and live in accordance with that.

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

That is why I do not and should not go chasing after some attempt to establish another idea of the Church when I haven’t sufficiently explored this one. You are assuming that I have some kind of ulterior motive here.

I think I understand what may be confusing people. You have established a premise that the Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly be the true Church because of it’s bloody history. You say that the Church as an “institution” has sanctioned these bloody atrocities. You say that protestantism is not held to the same standards because there is no central authority to sanction the actions of specific individuals within protestantism. But the reality of the matter states that if you can trace your history to the reformation or an early heresy, there is probably blood on the hands of your ancestors. But then you make this statement in an earlier post:

"Suffice it to say, I don’t belong to any Church with a bloody history".

And so the posters here are left to wonder which church this is that you are comparing to all others.

 

[Shiann]

…Or more specifically, you are concerned with the “innocents” that could have suffered under the Inquisition- correct?

 

[esr]

Eden of Mind,

I understand that you do not want to pretend that you are right and then move on to something else. I too struggle with wanting to know the absolute truth of every issue. However, I have come to accept that there are some things that we will never know 100% of the truth. I did not read your lengthy posts because I do not have the time to really research the issue to the extent that I would want to. That is what faith is about. We will never know the truth of many things until we are in Heaven with the Beatific Vision. While it seems very cruel by our standards that anyone would kill someone else for their beliefs, I have faith in God that He knows what is best for our souls and for His Church.

I know you are going to say that the fact that the Catholic Church sanctioned the death of innocent people proves that it cannot be the true Church. However, that statement contains a lot of allegations that I do not have the facts to argue about sufficiently. Therefore, you are right that I am not the person to address that issue. But, that does not preclude me from asking then what is the true Church. As it is stated in Sacred Scripture, there has to be a true Church that has existed from the time of Pentecost until now that has not changed its doctrine and can be traced back to the office of St. Peter. Now, if it is not the Roman Catholic Church, then there is no other alternative and that would mean that there has not been a true Church, which would contradict Sacred Scripture. Now, do you see why the answer to the question that many people have asked you (ie. what is the true Church if it is not the Roman Catholic Church?) is so important. If you refuse to answer, it leaves us with no Church to withstand the gates of hell. So, please, out of love, tell us what the true Church is.

Regarding John 16:2-3, I was not suggesting in any way that it is okay for some people to kill and not for others. I was just remarking on what appeared to be the contextual meaning of the scripture as I read it.