L
Laurent_LUG
Guest
I disagree , no further explanation needed !!
Only this , there are more religions , so …
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), March 24, 2009
Why do Catholics believe that all non-Catholics hold the same beliefs?
- Status
Only this , there are more religions , so …
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), March 24, 2009
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Actually I never felt that way. But I will say that I never have heard of a protestant that said the Rosary. Now that is wonderful. I love to hear things like that. Would you mind if I asked what Protestant Church does recite the Rosary. Again that is wonderful to hear!
Many “High” Anglicans do - in fact, it’s possible read books by some of them & come across nothing that a Catholic could not in good conscience say. Unfortunately, there is so much zeal on these fora to find as many differences as possible between RCism & Anglicanism, that what is shared is never mentioned; & that gives a false impression 
http://www.esbvm.org.uk/about.htmhttp://www.walsingham.org.uk/
P
Patrick_Cox
Guest
Hi Spirit Meadow
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you lose on earth shall be considered losed in heaven.” Jesus was of course addressing Peter when he said these words…
If I may respectfully ask you - with approximately 30 000 different versions of Christianity having spread across the world - ie effectively 30 000 different versions of teaching, doctrines, rules, practices etc, how do we reconcile this statement of Jesus? Which version of teaching has in fact been bound in heaven? Or do you think Jesus is happy to bind whatever version of Christianity people happen to come up with? Do you think the Holy Spirit would guide people to different teachings and beliefs, or only to one true belief?
You see - sadly in reality, as Christians, whilst we share so much that is good, we are not quite One. “All of Christendom” as you mention above is not one, much though most Christians would probably like it to be. In reality, we are not actually all unified. It is something we need to work towards… because there can not be different versions of Christianity bound in heaven - there can only be one truth, one complete version of Christianity bound in heaven. Would you agree?
For example, either Jesus really IS present in the host at communion, or He isn’t. It can’t be both!
I look forward to your thoughts on the above.
Kind regards
Patrick
P
Patrick_Cox
Guest
Hi again Spirit Meadow
I think your comment about finding no reference to “Roman Catholic Church” is neither here nor there. At that particular time in history there were not many different belief systems or different versions of Christianity floating around as there are today, so there really was no need to specify the type of Christian Church was there? In those times the understanding of the use of the word “Church” referred to the early Christian Church founded by Jesus on Peter and the early apostles. There was no need to specify any more than this.
One must of course distinguish the word “Church” as described in my paragraph above (with a capital letter) versus the word “churches” (plural and with a small letter) which simply meant that a number of physical sites were developing wherein the teachings of the “Church” (capital “C”) were being taught. So there is no conflict between the use of the word “Church” and “church” herein.
Finally, isn’t it intriguing how one can read the bible many many times (as you have), and yet no matter how many times people read it, there can still be so many new and different interpretations each time. Every bible college can focus on different things, teach different doctrines based on where it chooses to place it’s emphasis. Wherever you go around the world, highly educated people can teach confidently and persuasively with their vast knowledge of scripture. Surely with such education they must know what they are talking about…? Yet no matter how well educated they all are, their interpretations still differ, and what gets taught differs… even if they read it over and over and over again… I wonder if this is what God intended…?
Patrick
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
My belief is that most Catholics do not think all non-Catholics hold the same beliefs. All we really know is that they have a fundamental disagreement/difference from our Faith. I also think that the interpretation is up to the reader as far as questions grouping all non-Catholics together. After all, if I ask a question about what other people believe about the Trinity - I don’t need to ask Catholics, but I am asking the 1st Baptists, 2nd Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians (sorry I can’t spell), etc. So I group them all as Protestants. I don’t necessarily think all these groups believe the same things, but I do realize that for the most part they have differences in their beliefs from mine. Its not a derrogatory term to use Protestants (unless you for some reason take offense to it). Historically speaking Protestant churches were established after some members of the Catholic Church dissented from the Faith and formed their own. Therefore, at its base any (to my knowledge) Christian church began (historically) as Catholic, but chose to separate/protest certain teachings. I don’t know of many churches that trace their lines back as far as the Catholic Church. For instance, the Anglican Church (Church of England?) began when the king protested the RCC’s rule on divorce. Prior to that time Anglicans did not exist - they were Catholics. Another instance, Lutherans began when Luther posted his theses and people protested Catholicism and formed their own churches. Prior to that, they were all Catholic. You see where I’m going with this? With the exception of the non-Christian faiths, most (if not all) non-Catholic churches actually broke away from the Catholic church sometime in history. Even during apostolic times, when a particular church/parish attempted to dissent, letters were written for the Head of the Church to advise the group. Sometimes the letters came from the dissentors, sometimes the letters came to the dissentors. However, to my knowledge, the final answer/resolution was decided by the Head of the Church (the Pope).
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I reinterate, we all all One in Christendom. Our faith in Christ while differing in minor points, is essentially the same, we use one scripture. And as to the bickering, I don’t go to other forums, and forgive me but I do hold Catholicism to a higher standard than forums run by mostly it seems to me unchurched, solo interepretors of scripture who deny education in the bible or theology is valuable. I assumed a level of learning and intelligence here, and so I am saddened when I see some comporting themselves in such an unseemly manner making wild charges and ugly assumptions. And I do agree that there are Non RC’s here who respond in kind. But we are not the one’s screaming again and again, WE are first, and best. This possessory claim is self-defeating and against everything that Christ stands for in my opinion.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Would you expect it to be defined within the creed itself? Catholic theological dictionaries define the creeds as “christian statements of faith.”
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Rinnie, much as it may pain you to know, many theologians and biblical experts, many of them RC, don’t believe that Peter started any church other than the one at Antioch. I believe that Jesus put Peter in charge of continuing the teachings he had laid out. Peter did so, and so do other apostles and Paul. I certainly would argue that Peter was not the first pope and the first mention by the ECF is I believe of Lucius?
I said nothing about interpretating the bible for oneself. I suggest that since your position on some things is against what I believe to be RCC teaching, you are interpreting for yourself. You must of course know that the Church relies on scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium for its teaching? you must admit that the church finds the NT AND OT as a continuous whole?
I said nothing about the HS giving you or anyone the right to interpret privately. Where do you reach these conclusions? I don’t think you understand me at all. Try again and read carefully what I have said. you have not of course explained your claim that the Church relies only on the NT. Nor snertecus’s remarks that the Nicene Creed uses the little c for catholic.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Third what does the O.T. have to do with the teaching’s of the RCC. We believe in the N.T. and it is a big part of our faith.
That is a direct quote from you rinnie.
I think you are getting so excited that you aren’t reading carefully. There is no anomosity here, we can speak calmly.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Fine, then please be so kind as to give me the section Number and I can look it up and read it in context against what you said. As written it was too disjointed for me to understand what the point was.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I have no quarrel with you statement. The Roman Pontiff does indeed have supreme authority over the RCC.
I made no statement about any bishops, so I have no idea why you keep referring to them. I agreed with you that the Pope has full authority over the RCC , and did so in what you quoted from me.
I am aware you believe that Jesus made Peter Pope if you will. I as I have said, would disagree as would many Catholic theologians as well as Protestant ones.
Who is they? Okay, if you say so, but I suspect that the Pope doesn’t act often without a pretty good idea that most of the bishops will agree with him. Pius XII I believe, sent letters to all his bishops to get their opinion before declaring Mary had been assumed in 1950 I believe.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You have forgotten already? You surely know that when the RCC is meant it is referred to in all Capital letters? Roman Catholic Church? No one would call it roman catholic church. That would not be correct. When the word catholic is used alone as in One Holy catholic and Apostolic Church, it refers to the church universal.
Catholic Church is actually the universal church so One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is also the universal church. Roman Catholic Church refers to the specific denominiation of Roman Catholicism presided over by the Roman Pontiff.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I have no clue about your ramblings. You asked me where Episcopalian was in the bible. I said right night to where Roman Catholic Church is. The answer is neither is found in the bible. So stop there. The rest you have just made up in some “i’ve been insulted” mode that you dreamed up.
My reference to a small contingent of the orthodox RCC which demands others accede to their belief that they are first and best may not apply to you. If so, then why the question of me as to where Episcopalian was in the bible?
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
I’m not Rinnie or whoever you’re addressing, but I’ll answer anyway.
The Catholic Church does NOT rely only on the NT. I don’t recall anyone on this board who is a member of the Church stating that. If you’ve ever attended Mass, read the CCC, listened to the Pope, etc, you would know that we incorporate OT & NT in our liturgy. We use principles from the OT & NT in shaping our doctrines, dogmas, and even apologetics. However, we also have Tradition which includes the Magesterium of the Church. However, all of the statements made in the OT are not enforced any longer. Some of the prohibitions - eating of swine for one - have been completely done away with b/c they were two-fold. One purpose was for God to request obedience. The other purpose IMO is that they were sanitary. In the days of the OT swine carried diseases that humans could catch. While they still do (called a zoonosis & more common between humans & pigs than humans & cows or horses, etc b/c of similarities of antigen-antibody complexes on internal organs), we have advanced technologically, medically, and sanitarily to remove the dangers (for the most part). The same can be said for the treatment of lepers, the ‘possessed’, the alien, etc. Jesus himself followed most of the rules of Judiasm, but some he did not. He regularly met, dined, and stayed w/ aliens, prostitutes, tax collectors, gentiles, etc. He did not strictly follow the Sabbath (he cured the blind man, etc). The biggest was what he asked his disciples to do - eat his flesh. That’s obviously a big no-no in the Jewish culture. However, it has been interpreted since the early Church that this command is the primary difference between true believers & non-believers.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, they didn’t. Our existence as a separate Christian communion began (though there was temporary reunion later) when the king declared the Church of England autonomous so that the archbishop of Canterbury could give him an annulment (which the Pope was dragging his feet on). No “protesting” of a “rule on divorce” took place. In fact, the Church of England did not remarry people after divorce until 2003 (the Episcopal Church is much more liberal), and even then only in certain circumstances. Even Charles and Camilla had to be content with a “blessing,” and even that was controversial.
Edwin
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
It is my belief that Jesus was about reforming Judaism which he clearly thought had gone off the tracks. That this was true is supported by the fact that it was years later that Judaism explicitely put Jewish Christians out of the temple, declaring they were not Jews any longer.
I have no quarrel that Jesus wanted Peter to continue his work of spreading what he considered the true message of God. Peter did so, as did all the apostles. I assume you believe that all the apostles had the right to forgive sins and work miracles? In your estimation did they receive this directly from Peter or from Jesus?
I would assume that Jesus wished the message to be the same. However, humans are all to fallible it seems. Of course you recognize that various groups taught different things from the very beginning. Paul’s letters reflect this. The fact is, there has never been uniformity of teaching ever. At a point in time, Rome was able to take control and consolidate power, but even then, disputes arose and there are more than one occasion of double popes, one eventually being declared not the true pope.
There is no question that there is variation in doctrine from denominiation to denomination. But the fundamental teachngs have remained largely intact I would suggest. I think you taking it too literally as to “what is actually bound in heaven.” We certainly recognize that Jesus will be the final arbiter of judgement on each and every one of us, regardless of what any priest, bishop, pope or minister might claim.
Truth remains truth. Your believe that your church is incapable of error is your belief. My church would certainly make no such claim. We do our best, and know that in the end Jesus will decide based on the heart. We teach truth as we have come to know it. The HS no doubt does its best, but frail humanity often does not see.
It is of course quite simplisitic to sit back and say, it’s all taken care of. I have nothing to do, just follow the rules of my church. I don’t think Jesus envisioned that, nor do I find evidence in the bible for that. A church is a facilitator of faith. It is not the thing worshiped as truth. The not make that distinction is to be on dangerous ground indeed it seems to me.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Patrick it would have been helpful had your read all the posts. My reference to RCC in the bible is in reponse to claims that Jesus started the RCC. I ask to be shown that, since I was then attacked with where is the Episcopal church mentioned in the bible.
But you are incorrect in my estimation that the church of the first years was not quite fractured. Paul’s letters are clear proof as well as Acts that there were many disputes and many different teachings, to say nothing of the Gnostics. Within years there were many many different claims of “truth”, those that were defeated were declared heretical, and those that prevailed “truth.”
As I have said repeatedly, I don’t believe, and many experts agree, that Jesus meant to start no new church. He meant to reform Judaism within the confines of Judaism. He never separated from his faith. Jewish Christians still went to temple until finally some years later they were forcibly removed and told to refrain from coming back.
I agree, there are differing minds on scripture. But there is usually, on most issues a majority and miniority opinion, not a host of them. I’m speaking of course of legitimate exegesis, conducted along general literary critical lines.
I assume God did so intend. If he wanted to be crystal clear, presumably he had the ability to do so. I suspect God intends that each of us must struggle to grow in faith and understanding. Certainly any of the mystics would tell you that union with God is not a thing that one can read from a manual and attain. It takes years of practice and devotion. We are spiritual beings, and as such, we must grow into who we are. That takes work, and any faith that claims to give it to you in some book or set of rules, is first of all not faithful to a true understanding of God, but leading people astray, limiting their growth.
What God probably did not want is all this rancor and oneupmanship. He probably doesn’t much care for any chruch making claims of being THE one. That probably does make him laugh, and be sad at the same time. What He undoubtedly does wish is that we uphold each other on the path to union with Him, and we do a very poor job of that it seems.
We should always be open to other people enlightening us, teaching us something new. I know that that has happened to me countless times. It is not possible when anyone claims that they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
By that logic - what makes any church universal or more-so than the Catholic Church? I think you (others definitely have) pointed out that there are countless beliefs as to the ‘truth’. What makes the RCC (Catholic Church?) universal is more than just its name. It is the fact that the Church encorporates all races, nationalities, etc into its fold. The reason we Catholics keep pointing out that we have a direct line to Jesus through Peter is that it establishes that as Jesus said “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (paraphrasing, sorry). Its not that we’re trying to emphasize that we’re the 1st or the best (although we obviously think we are or we’d be some other religion). Its that we’re indicating that we have a direct line of decendants/apostolic succession that Jesus foretold. If we’re to believe Jesus (and I think all Christians do that), then He meant for His Church to be everlasting and unbroken. When the line is broken by dissension - especially to the point of trying to form new doctrine - Jesus is basically being implied to be a liar or mistaken. However, I doubt any Christian (of any denomination/faction/sect/etc) would sincerely think that.
Another key point is that by having one Head, the Church is not giving more power to one area. Instead the Church is maintaining that there must be someone with the final say in matters of morality. Look at what has happened within the last 40 years to Christianity. 40 years ago all Christians (and many other religions) respected life from conception/fertilization until natural death. Now you have countless denominations waffling on the idea. However, the Church (even though there are some internal dissentors) remains strong on the idea. It all goes back to natural law - which the Church teaches every human knows, but some do not acknowlege. Again, since the Church remains firm on this we are again demonstrating that we have an unbroken line of apostolic succession and are remaining true to Christ.
The Pope is the Head/brain of the Church. The Cardinals & Bishops are the spinal cord. The priests are the nerves. The laity are the receptors. When your skin comes in contact w/ a hot surface the initial response is through the receptors. The receptors themselves make no decisions. They pass the decision making up to the nerves. The nerves issue (in general) a quick response - pull the hand back, but send the message up to the spinal cord. The spinal cord makes note of the disturbance from various receptors, but cannot rationalize it, so passes the message back up to the brain. The brain collects all the information from the various receptors, translates that information into thought and action. Then the brain sends the message down through the ‘chain of command’ back to the receptors. That’s how it is with the heirarchy of the Church. The laity are the ones on the front lines who see all the problems and variances of the world. They report/request information from the priests, who are closer to the front-lines, but still somewhat removed. The priest can issue a general statement - knee jerk response of good vs. bad. However, the priests must rely on the bishops & cardinals to further educate them on these matters. The bishops & cardinals basically hear the problems from a larger area and can interpret some information, but primarily they educate the Pontiff on the issues at hand. They give him the information they’ve gathered through the priests & laity. However, they acknowledge that he has the ultimate authority. If each group merely made their own decision no unity would be possible. That’s how it is with all the denominations of Christianity. Everyone wants to be the brain, but in reality we’re only receptors - we gather information for ourselves, but have no perspective on how it affects the whole.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
BB, thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut, but if you had read the thread you would have realized that it was unnecessary. I was RC for many years, so I know what the RCC teaches. I quoted Rinnie his exact words, and he knows of what I speak.
- Status