Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[Tantum_ergo]

You’re missing the point. The point is not the ‘day’, the point is the issue of obedience.

Now, I’m sure that the apostles, had they stepped foot onto the continent of Antarctica, would have made sure that they wore ‘cold weather gear’. They would not have insisted on waltzing through Antarctica dressed in the same gear that they would wear in Egypt.

Different countries have different leaders. There were 12 apostles and they weren’t all carbon copies of each other. Therefore, when those who had been ‘taught’ by St. Thomas, for example, met in later years, they would commemorate St. Thomas ‘more’ than St. Jude, or St. James the Lesser. Countries like Ireland would tend to celebrate St. Patrick (with whom they shared historical events) over say St. Nicholas of Myrna, or St. Denis of France.

And so the Mass the celebrated on a saint’s feast day would be day for that particular ‘group’ to celebrate while the people over in another country might celebrate a different saint’s day.

And nobody would say, “Oh mercy me. I’m in Ireland and if I miss Mass on March 17 it’s a mortal sin but it’s not a mortal sin for me not to go to Mass on March 17 in FRANCE” because St. Patrick is the patron saint of Ireland, and not of France.

Mary is the patron of the Americas and most particularly the U.S. is consecrated to her. Therefore, as our ‘patron’ we have the obligation to attend Mass on December 8 if we are U.S. Catholics and, of course, in the U.S. It’s the obligation to obedience for what the bishops of our particular diocese (or country) have decided. I really find it sad that people don’t seem to be able to grasp this and attempt to turn it into a rather silly ‘strawman’ by claiming that it’s somehow ‘crazy’ for one country to celebrate a Holy Day on ONE particular saint’s day and another country to have a different day of obligation. Why is it crazy? In fact, it’s perfectly logical. The world was evangelized by a LOT of saints, not just one.

 

[CMatt25]

Ok if you want to believe different things should be required by different bishops for obedience in order to avoid mortal sin in what is supposed to be a universal Church. Do all bishops worldwide at least require obedience of attendance on Nov 1 for all saints or is that still not worldwide either?

 

[jmcrae]

So if Ignatius was a mere toddler at the time Jesus was crucified, it wasn’t a mortal sin in the earliest church, the one Jesus founded just before His Crucifixion and which existed in the early Acts of the Apostles right after His Resurrection?

Well, it would have been a mortal sin to disobey the Apostles, since Jesus said to Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatever you permit on earth is permitted in Heaven.” This was later extended also to the rest of the Apostles.

It was the Apostles who set the Bishops in authority as their Successors - St. Ignatius didn’t just randomly make a decree out of nowhere. Basically, he was stating the obvious; not creating a new rule.

The rest of your post is all the more reason to believe we are united as one, the body of Christ united in belief in Christ our Lord and Savior. Because even the worldwide bishops do not agree on everything.

First, the Bishops don’t disagree on the teachings of the Church. (I hope!) They create different disciplines for their Dioceses, depending on the need.

Do you understand the difference between a teaching and a discipline?

For example, mothers have to teach their children to eat healthy foods, including vegetables. All mothers teach this. Each different mother, though, uses a different kind of discipline in her home, to teach this idea. For example, one mother might say, “You may not have dessert unless you have eaten at least one carrot and one spoon of peas by the time your TV show comes on.” Another may say, “You will sit there until you have eaten two carrots and one spoon of peas, even if you take so long to do it that you have to miss your TV show.”

Do these mothers disagree on the teaching about eating vegetables? No, they don’t. They simply have different methods (disciplines) for teaching their children to eat their vegetables.

It’s the same with the Bishops. All are teaching the same doctrines. Each is using different kinds of discipline, to do so.

Just as each of us had to obey his or her own mother, while growing up, rather than the mother who lived next door, in the same way, each of us has to obey our own Bishop, and not the Bishop from a different diocese, where things may be “easier” from our point of view.

All of the Bishops are teaching the same things, though. They don’t “disagree.” They just each have different instructional methods.

 

[CMatt25]

So is what is defined as mortal sin a teaching or a discipline? Is missing Mass on Nov 1 for instance a mortal sin for everyone worldwide or is it dependent on where one resides according to the whim of a region’s bishop? Then I’ve been told no the mortal sin is not missing Mass on a date but the disobedience. So then where do we draw the line on blind obedience? Are we just supposed to always do whatever our leader tells us to do? Taken to extremes such mentality can cause people harm. Where does one’s God given reason come into play? For me it makes absolutely no sense that I am committing mortal sin by missing Mass on a day of obligation but my fellow Catholic in another part of the world is not because they are not obligated to. We are talking mortal sin here not eating vegetables. Do you understand?

 

[jmcrae]

So is what is defined as mortal sin a teaching or a discipline? Is missing Mass on Nov 1 for instance a mortal sin for everyone worldwide or is it dependent on where one resides according to the whim of a region’s bishop? Then I’ve been told no the mortal sin is not missing Mass on a date but the disobedience. So then where do we draw the line on blind obedience? Are we just supposed to always do whatever our leader tells us to do?

If it is not a sinful thing to do, then yes, we are expected to obey our leaders.

We don’t even have to imagine the chaos that would come about if people were constantly disobedient, because people are constantly disobedient, and we have the wreckage of our current society as a direct result of that. The majority of traffic deaths are caused by people who don’t think that traffic laws such as speed limits or stopping at a red light should apply to them, because they don’t understand the reasons for these laws.

Taken to extremes such mentality can cause people harm.

In what way?

Where does one’s God given reason come into play?

In areas where you are free to make your own decision, such as the other five days of the week when Mass is available, but you are not actually required to go (you can go if you want, but it is not required), and in other areas where we are free to make our own decisions.

For me it makes absolutely no sense that I am committing mortal sin by missing Mass on a day of obligation but my fellow Catholic in another part of the world is not because they are not obligated to. We are talking mortal sin here not eating vegetables. Do you understand?

A child might disagree that the issue of eating vegetables is a “minor” issue - he might like to argue that it should be up to him, whether to eat what his mother serves him for dinner, or not, rather than having to miss his TV show, or his dessert, if he chooses not to eat his vegetables.

We obey our Bishops because they are in charge of our Diocese, and in charge of how the faith will be practiced in their Diocese. If they aren’t asking you to commit a sin, then there is no harm in obeying them. If there would be some kind of harm to you personally, you can easily get an exemption.

 

[CMatt25]

In what way?

We obey our Bishops because they are in charge of our Diocese, and in charge of how the faith will be practiced in their Diocese. If they aren’t asking you to commit a sin, then there is no harm in obeying them. If there would be some kind of harm to you personally, you can easily get an exemption.

In what way can blind faith obedience lead to harm? Think about it. It’s a fine line. Too much control by another can lead the mind to believe they have to do all sorts of things.

So the faith is not practiced the same universally you are saying. And mortal sin is not universal because it depends on how one’s bishop defines what their diocese needs to obey to avoid mortal sin. If you want to believe mortal sin depends on where you live, you can.

 

[CMatt25]

If it is not a sinful thing to do, then yes, we are expected to obey our leaders.

But you are allowing the leader to define what is sin and needs to be obeyed in his particular diocese

 

[jmcrae]

In what way can blind faith obedience lead to harm? Think about it. It’s a fine line. Too much control by another can lead the mind to believe they have to do all sorts of things.

Again - if they don’t tell you to commit a sin (we find these in the Ten Commandments; it’s not difficult to know) you can obey them with no harm done. We are required to obey our leaders for there to be an orderly society where everyone is safe and productive. It’s not “blind obedience.” It’s doing what we are told to do, because we have been told to do it, and there is no harm in doing it.

So the faith is not practiced the same universally you are saying. And mortal sin is not universal because it depends on how one’s bishop defines what their diocese needs to obey to avoid mortal sin. If you want to believe mortal sin depends on where you live, you can.

The “mortal sin” is disobeying your Bishop when he gives a lawful command.

The two children in my example would commit mortal sin by disobeying their mothers - the first, by eating dessert even if he had not eaten his vegetables, and the second, by watching television, even if he had not eaten his vegetables.

The first kid is sinning by eating dessert, and the second kid is sinning by watching TV - not because either of these things in and of themselves are sins, but because their mothers had commanded them to refrain from these things until they had eaten their vegetables.

If the first kid watched TV, he would not have been disobeying his mother; thus, no mortal sin there.

If the second kid had eaten dessert, he would not have been disobeying his mother; thus, no mortal sin there.

You could ask, “How could eating dessert be a sin for the one kid who didn’t eat his vegetables, but not for the other kid who didn’t eat his vegetables?” The reason is obvious - because the one kid’s mother forbade him to eat dessert if he didn’t eat his vegetables; the other mother did not.

It’s the same with the Bishops. Each Bishop commands his flock to keep different Holy Days of Obligation. The sin comes in when we disobey our Bishop. The action itself is not intrinsically sinful or not sinful.

 

[jmcrae]

But you are allowing the leader to define what is sin and needs to be obeyed in his particular diocese

No. The sin is to disobey the Bishop.

The discipline is the thing that the Bishop wants us to do.

But if we all have to wait until we understand the meaning of every command, before we should be required to obey it, then why bother with leaders at all? Why not just have all of us attend theology schools and seminaries, be ordained as Bishops, and then all just figure out our own rules?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Yes, but without the documentation, “Jesus” could be anything - and in the next generation, with no teaching materials to pass on the message to the children, simply gone from the world.

They have the Holy Bible and are happy with that. If you are happy with what you have, God Bless you.

Keep in mind that the Bible is one of the documents of the Catholic Church that would disappear if the Catholic Church were to disappear with all of its documents and institutions (as would all Sunday Schools and other educational institutions, since these are also institutions of the Catholic Church).

Look to that institution which teaches the same today that it did yesterday and will teach tomorrow… The Catholic Church. And without it, were it suddenly disappear like a blown bubble touching a finger, I am reminded of “The second coming” By Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

– William Butler Yeats, January 1919

In fact I see some of that today… Outside the Church there is a lack of a “falconer” and the center does not hold. “too many chiefs and not enough indians” to put it another (less PC) way.

FSC

 

[CMatt25]

Again - if they don’t tell you to commit a sin (we find these in the Ten Commandments; it’s not difficult to know) you can obey them

The “mortal sin” is disobeying your Bishop when he gives a lawful command.

The two children in my example would commit mortal sin by disobeying their mothers - the first, by eating dessert even if he had not eaten his vegetables, and the second, by watching television, even if he had not eaten his vegetables.

The first kid is sinning by eating dessert, and the second kid is sinning by watching TV - not because either of these things in and of themselves are sins, but because their mothers had commanded them to refrain from these things until they had eaten their vegetables.

If the first kid watched TV, he would not have been disobeying his mother; thus, no mortal sin there.

If the second kid had eaten dessert, he would not have been disobeying his mother; thus, no mortal sin there.

You could ask, “How could eating dessert be a sin for the one kid who didn’t eat his vegetables, but not for the other kid who didn’t eat his vegetables?” The reason is obvious - because the one kid’s mother forbade him to eat dessert if he didn’t eat his vegetables; the other mother did not.

It’s the same with the Bishops. Each Bishop commands his flock to keep different Holy Days of Obligation. The sin comes in when we disobey our Bishop. The action itself is not intrinsically sinful or not sinful.

Yes and I know you are going to somehow say the first commandment and the Sabbath commandment and the love God commandment somehow translate into one bishop requiring obedience by observing one holy day of obligation and another not. But you are comparing apples to oranges. Or again in this case vegetables to mortal sin/eternal salvation and somehow in doing so have convinced yourself the Catholic Church and her bishops are on one page with everything. When obviously on matters of what needs to be obeyed they are not. But you are welcome to think of your vegetable scenerio as an equal to salvation issues. I do not. Peace and God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes and I know you are going to somehow say the first commandment and the Sabbath commandment and the love God commandment somehow translate into one bishop requiring obedience by observing one holy day of obligation and another not. But you are comparing apples to oranges. Or again in this case vegetables to mortal sin/eternal salvation and somehow in doing so have convinced yourself the Catholic Church and her bishops are on one page with everything. When obviously on matters of what needs to be obeyed they are not. But you are welcome to think of your vegetable scenerio as an equal to salvation issues. I do not. Peace and God bless.

Is it or is it not a mortal sin to disobey your mother? Both of these are “salvation issues.”

 

[Roblox84]

I hope the title is fairly self-explanatory.

By the church, I do not mean that only card carrying members of this organization have eternal life. I do mean that some certain graces or gifts are only available to those within the organization and that it would be to the benefit of every Christian to be a part of this organization.

To get this started, I like to brainstorm. These are possibilities that I have heard along the way. Any additions to my possibilities are welcome.

If one organization today is “The True Church”, I have come up with the following logical possibilites:

• The Catholic organization is “The True Church”.
• The Orthodox organization is “The True Church”.
• A restorationalist organization (Mormon, JW) is “The True Church”
• The trail of blood theory, i.e. “The True Church” was underground for a certain period of time and now exists today in one form or another (most commonly in independent, separatist, fundamentalist Baptist)
• A trivial possibility that nobody believes: “The True Church” is one Protestant organization.

If no one organization today is “The True Church” I have come up with the following possibilities

• What we see today is compatible with how Jesus designed the church.
• What we see today is not compatible with how Jesus designed. Therefore what we see today is a result of sin.

There of course are sub possibilites under these two. Two that I have come up with in the “not compatible” category are

• Jesus designed local organizations only. Centralization and denominations are outside of His design and therefore sin.
• Jesus designed one centralized church. Because of sin, this once centralized church fragmented. As a result Jesus can not bless the individual fragments in the same way He could bless the one church.

Anyway, that is what I have come up with. Nothing really original here (I’m not that original), just assorted theories that I have heard along the journey.

How can all of these such as the orthodox claim that they are the true church if they resulted from the reformation? Isn’t that why it was called the Protestant Reformation? Because protestants were protesting against the original church?

 

[CMatt25]

Is it or is it not a mortal sin to disobey your mother? Both of these are “salvation issues.”

Looking right now at the 10 Commandments to see if I missed one. Lets see. Yes here it is. Honor your father and mother. I also see to have only one God. I see not to take the Lord’s name in vain. I know Jesus spoke to love God. But nope I don’t see where it says it’s a mortal sin not to honor a bishop on everything. The bishop is neither God our heavenly Father nor our biological father. But if you want to believe otherwise, go ahead. You’re free to. It’s fine with me. I have no problem with you believing as you want.

 

[fms]

The One, Holy, Catholic , and Apostolic Church

 

[jmcrae]

Looking right now at the 10 Commandments to see if I missed one. Lets see. Yes here it is. Honor your father and mother. I also see to have only one God. I see not to take the Lord’s name in vain. I know Jesus spoke to love God. But nope I don’t see where it says it’s a mortal sin not to honor a bishop on everything. The bishop is neither God our heavenly Father nor our biological father. But if you want to believe otherwise, go ahead. You’re free to. It’s fine with me. I have no problem with you believing as you want.

The New Covenant, which we find in the Gospels, and especially in Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7, expands this commandment to all lawful authority.

 

[fms]

The Chief Rabbi Zolli who converted was asked:

“But why didn’t you join one of the Protestant denominations, which are also Christian?”

He replied:

“Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: ‘Why wait 1,500 years to protest?’ The Catholic Church was recognized by the whole Christian world as the true Church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which was preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue.”

The Chief Rabbi’s Conversion

 

[schaick]

How do you know you of all the billions of people on earth, have the truth? Do you have any evidence to back this up? What makes you so special that you possess such incredible knowledge? I’m sure you are aware of the ridiculous number of Protestant denominations there are, how do you know which is true and which is false? Or are they all true? Or are they all false?

The Church I attend is built on the TRUTHS given to us by Jesus, passed down to us by the Apostles in the Holy Bible.

I see no mention in the Bible or the very early Church of any Popes and their needing to interprete the Holy Bible for us.

Paul did a great job of setting us on the right path.

False denominations requrie for your salvation something that is not mentioned in the Holy Bible.

Where Trinitarian Christians see unity in the one faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and diversity in celebrating that faith, Catholics simply see division and confusion.

There is one interpretation and the Holy Spirit leads us to many applications.

 

[schaick]

Matt, two of the Church Fathers, whose writings are still available today, were students of St John, the Apostle. These were St. Igantius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp, whose feastday we celebrated yesterday 2/24/10. They were also Bishops who died brutal deaths for the faith.

Their writings tell us how they early Christians lived out their faith life, mass, liturgy, Eucharist. Their writings are substantiated by drawing and writings on the walls of the Catacombs. Archeological digs show they practiced infant Baptism and believed in the Real Presence, among other things the Church still practices today.

These early bishops had to stamp out heresies that began at the very earliest times. Gnosticism, Arianism, Marcionism are some of them. We are not Arians or Nominalists today because of the work of these early Bishops preserving the Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. That is the role of the Bishop.

If you can’t accept the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and the Apostles, then it is impossible to know if Christianity, the Bible, the Trinity, all of it, is even valid.

The problem is-

Popes of the Catholic Church have added requirements for my salvation that were not present in the “catholic” Church that Jesus is building.

The Church saying things for instance-

I have to be a card carrying member of the **Catholic Church **for full communion with **Jesus’ Church **even though I have been baptised, believe in the real presence in the Eucharist,confess my sins, have and hold dear the TRUTH passed down to us through the Apostles, etc.

Scattered throughout all the denominations is Jesus’ Church that we get it’s start in Acts.

 

[schaick]

You think the Apostles didn’t mirror their teacher???
Faith doesn’t come out of the blue, it must be based on something. What is the base of your faith? How did you come to know it?

TRUTH = GOD’s Word