Why do we need the Church? Not A Church, but THE Church.

[NotTooSmart]

Have you researched the Catholic church in which Christ established? And the Early Church Fathers? If not, I suggest you do so. Believe me, you would NOT be concerned about any negativity toward Catholicism, why? Because it is the truth, seriously.

Actually I have read some Catholic apologists through the web site of Dave Armstrong before coming here.

Where he is convincing is that maybe your denomination is not as evil as some that I have read make it out to be. I’m open to possibly believing that logically you are another denomination like the rest of us. That is what I am trying to clarify in my mind by coming here.

Where I am unconvinced is that the relationship is “Catholics superior Protestants inferior” or “Catholics true church of Jesus Christ Protestants heretics” or other variants on the same theme. And I really do not want to get into this because frankly I do not want to get verbally beat up upon.

Just one parting comment. If there was a relationship “One denomination …say yours or any other…superior…everyone else inferior”. then I would think the expectations of the superior denomination would be greater. For example, I would expect the superior denomination to demonstrate greater fruit of the spirit and Christlike character than the inferior ones. In other words it would be obvious in examining the lives and character of the superior denomination, that they are in fact superior.

Just something to think about.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Actually I have read some Catholic apologists through the web site of Dave Armstrong before coming here.

Where he is convincing is that maybe your denomination is not as evil as some that I have read make it out to be. I’m open to possibly believing that logically you are another denomination like the rest of us. That is what I am trying to clarify in my mind by coming here.

Where I am unconvinced is that the relationship is “Catholics superior Protestants inferior” or “Catholics true church of Jesus Christ Protestants heretics” or other variants on the same theme. And I really do not want to get into this because frankly I do not want to get verbally beat up upon.

Just one parting comment. If there was a relationship “One denomination …say yours or any other…superior…everyone else inferior”. then I would think the expectations of the superior denomination would be greater. For example, I would expect the superior denomination to demonstrate greater fruit of the spirit and Christlike character than the inferior ones. In other words it would be obvious in examining the lives and character of the superior denomination, that they are in fact superior.

Just something to think about.

Nottoosmart, you sound pretty smart to me… But does charity only begin with Catholics? Shouldn’t any one who believes in Christ listens to what He says? And that is with love? We must love one another? Is that just for Catholics?
One more thing to ponder. Christ would not have wanted 30,000 denominations. There is only ONE Catholic church, and the Holiness in this church is unbelievable, just as Jesus is Holy. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. These are the Four Marks of the true church Christ established. That’s it. period. Catholics don’t call themselves superior, only God is that, but we know that we are in a good place, and that’s all that matters.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Nottoosmart, you sound pretty smart to me… But does charity only begin with Catholics? Shouldn’t any one who believes in Christ listens to what He says? And that is with love? We must love one another? Is that just for Catholics?

Oh no…the command of Christ is for all Christians.

But you might have missed my point.

Let say I in coming to these forums was coming in the spirit of "My denomination superior, Catholics…oh lets say “whore of Babylon” to recite a saying I have heard. That would be a superior – inferior relationship.

You as a Catholic would have every right to step back and examine the fruit of the Holy Spirit (as well as the Scriptural evidence) of me who is making the claim. Since I am the one claiming superiority, the greater expectations should be upon me.

If I can’t clearly and logically make that case…in love…showing the fruit of the Holy Spirit while doing so…you would have every right to reject what I am saying on the basis of insufficient evidence.

It is the same as me presenting the gospel to a nonbeliever. The greater expectations rest on me since I am the one that is carrying the truth. If I can’t clearly make the case for Christ in love…without cramming the Bible down the nonbelievers throat…it would be better for me to just shut up and let my life do the witnessing for our Lord Jesus Christ.

One more thing to ponder. Christ would not have wanted 30,000 denominations.

Laying aside the issue of whether there are 30,000 denominations (which I doubt but anyway), this line of reasoning is convincing to the point of maybe Protestants (lumping all of us together as a whole which probably should not be done) are not as “right” as we sometimes can claim we are. However (speaking hypothetically here) even if “we are wrong” it does not mean that “you are right”.

There is only ONE Catholic church, and the Holiness in this church is unbelievable, just as Jesus is Holy. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. These are the Four Marks of the true church Christ established. That’s it. period. Catholics don’t call themselves superior, only God is that, but we know that we are in a good place, and that’s all that matters.

Well the claim in this thread is "Catholics…true church of Christ, Protestants…not true church (I think I have read the word heretic). Anyway on this web site I read of “Protestantism” as being heretical.

That sounds to me like a superior–>inferior relationship claim between the two groups.

So I am just saying that since that is the claim you all are making for yourselves, that you have the greater expectations…to lovingly, patienjtly, and convincingly show that this is true…if it in fact it is the truth you claim. At least in my mind that is the case. I would expect in reading this thread that the Catholics would be the ones showing the greater fruit of the Spirit.

Instead…

Well at this point I guess I will shut up.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Well the claim in this thread is "Catholics…true church of Christ, Protestants…not true church (I think I have read the word heretic). Anyway on this web site I read of “Protestantism” as being heretical.

That sounds to me like a superior–>inferior relationship claim between the two groups.

But truth is superior to error, don’t you agree? And the truth is this: that Rome has always held the Primacy. This we know from Scripture and history. But leaving aside for the moment the historical Patristic witness, let us go instead directly to the Scriptural witness. Now the Scripture explicitly tells us that the Roman Church has the the faith in all its fullness and purity.

The Roman faith is the universal faith:

First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world. Romans 1:8.

The Roman faith is the pure Christian faith:

I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge…" Romans 15:16

Further, all the churches in the New Testament honor the Roman Church:

“*All the churches *of Christ greet you.” Romans 16:16

I should note that this particular greeting is not found in any of Paul’s other letters, or anywhere else in the New Testament. It is unique! I should note further that phrase “all the churches” is a technical term indicating the concept of universal or catholic.

Now since this phrase “all the churches” appears only once in the New Testament, and is associated with no other church but Rome, the New Testament is clearly indicating something important about the nature of the Christian faith viz, that it is fundamentally both Roman and catholic!

No other churches in existence can even begin to make any of the above claims!

Think about it.

Thus Rome, not Wittenberg, not Geneva, nor any other man-made non-biblical church is, by the clear teaching of God’s Word, the standard by which all the Christian churches must be judged. And no, this is not arrogance, but rather simple truth and humility, as Pope Gelasius I (d. 496) insisted:

In his correspondence with the East on the question of Acacius, Gelasius openly confronted the charge that he was being arrogant and stubborn. He as variously said to be: “harsh, pitiless, too hard and difficult” (ep. 3.16). His answer was that humility was being what you are, not denying it, and that Rome was supreme.

The Rise of the Papacy, Robert B. Eno, 1990, ISBN 0894538020, p. 127.

books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22humility%20was%20being%20what%20you%20are%2C%20not%20denying%20it%2C%20and%20that%20Rome%20was%20supreme%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

I would strongly urge you to read the Rise of the Papacy, as well as the following:

The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention?, Adam S. Miller, Tower of David Publications.
geocities.com/adam_todm/B-1.htm

*Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers *, Dave Armstrong.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/03/books-by-dave-armstrong-biblical.html

Hope this helps.

God bless.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Oh no…the command of Christ is for all Christians.

But you might have missed my point.

Let say I in coming to these forums was coming in the spirit of "My denomination superior, Catholics…oh lets say “whore of Babylon” to recite a saying I have heard. That would be a superior – inferior relationship.

You as a Catholic would have every right to step back and examine the fruit of the Holy Spirit (as well as the Scriptural evidence) of me who is making the claim. Since I am the one claiming superiority, the greater expectations should be upon me.

If I can’t clearly and logically make that case…in love…showing the fruit of the Holy Spirit while doing so…you would have every right to reject what I am saying on the basis of insufficient evidence.

It is the same as me presenting the gospel to a nonbeliever. The greater expectations rest on me since I am the one that is carrying the truth. If I can’t clearly make the case for Christ in love…without cramming the Bible down the nonbelievers throat…it would be better for me to just shut up and let my life do the witnessing for our Lord Jesus Christ.

Laying aside the issue of whether there are 30,000 denominations (which I doubt but anyway), this line of reasoning is convincing to the point of maybe Protestants (lumping all of us together as a whole which probably should not be done) are not as “right” as we sometimes can claim we are. However (speaking hypothetically here) even if “we are wrong” it does not mean that “you are right”.

Well the claim in this thread is "Catholics…true church of Christ, Protestants…not true church (I think I have read the word heretic). Anyway on this web site I read of “Protestantism” as being heretical.

That sounds to me like a superior–>inferior relationship claim between the two groups.

So I am just saying that since that is the claim you all are making for yourselves, that you have the greater expectations…to lovingly, patienjtly, and convincingly show that this is true…if it in fact it is the truth you claim. At least in my mind that is the case. I would expect in reading this thread that the Catholics would be the ones showing the greater fruit of the Spirit.

Instead…

Well at this point I guess I will shut up.

No need to shut up here. We are as patient as we can be (I should really just speak for myself on this one). It is like showing non-Catholic Christians an apple, and they say no it isn’t an apple, it is a tomato when it so clearly is an apple. In other words, some people here is that they either don’t want to learn about Catholicism, try to defame it, say it is wrong, point out all these abuses, even when most of them are either untrue, or exaggerated, they simply just don’t get it. They don’t want to research the Catholic faith, even when there is extreme evidence in Scripture, with historical evidence as well as architectural evidence it gets frustrating. That is when the charity gets questionable. We are human, and as Jesus said if they don’t listen, shake the sand off your sandals and move on. I just hope you realize this and understand our faith first before you can comment about it.

 

[NotTooSmart]

But truth is superior to error, don’t you agree?

Yes and that is my point. If church ‘A’ claims it has all of the truth and that churches ‘B’-‘Z’ are in error to the extent that they disagree with church ‘A’, that is clearly a superior - inferior relationship claim.

And speaking for myself anyway, I have much greater expectations of any church that has a superiority claim in relationship to everybody else as opposed to an equivalency relationship.

My expectations are both that they can clearly present this to me in such a way that no other explanations are credible. Furthermore, in examining the testimonies of those in church ‘A’ I expect much more fruit of the spirit (love,joy,peace etc) and Christlike character.

If that is not present, at best I will believe church ‘A’ to be just as messed up as the rest of us in churches ‘B’-‘Z’ that I attend.

And the truth is this: that Rome has always held the Primacy. This we know from Scripture and history. But leaving aside for the moment the historical Patristic witness, let us go instead directly to the Scriptural witness. Now the Scripture explicitly tells us that the Roman Church has the the faith in all its fullness and purity.

The Roman faith is the universal faith:

First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world. Romans 1:8.

The Roman faith is the pure Christian faith:

I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge…" Romans 15:16

Further, all the churches in the New Testament honor the Roman Church:

“*All the churches *of Christ greet you.” Romans 16:16

I should note that this particular greeting is not found in any of Paul’s other letters, or anywhere else in the New Testament. It is unique! I should note further that phrase “all the churches” is a technical term indicating the concept of universal or catholic.

Now since this phrase “all the churches” appears only once in the New Testament, and is associated with no other church but Rome, the New Testament is clearly indicating something important about the nature of the Christian faith viz, that it is fundamentally both Roman and catholic!

No other churches in existence can even begin to make any of the above claims!

Think about it.

Thus Rome, not Wittenberg, not Geneva, nor any other man-made non-biblical church is, by the clear teaching of God’s Word, the standard by which all the Christian churches must be judged. And no, this is not arrogance, but rather simple truth and humility, as Pope Gelasius I (d. 496) insisted:

The Rise of the Papacy, Robert B. Eno, 1990, ISBN 0894538020, p. 127.

books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22humility%20was%20being%20what%20you%20are%2C%20not%20denying%20it%2C%20and%20that%20Rome%20was%20supreme%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

I would strongly urge you to read the Rise of the Papacy, as well as the following:

The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention?, Adam S. Miller, Tower of David Publications.
geocities.com/adam_todm/B-1.htm

*Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers *, Dave Armstrong.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/03/books-by-dave-armstrong-biblical.html

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Just to clarify, I really did not come to these forums to debate. Maybe that is because I am “NotTooSmart”. Then again it may be just that I don’t like to debate.

Neither did I come to these forums to be converted to Catholicism. I am quite happy in the local assembly I attend thank you, and I have very high expectations of anybody who wants to claim that their church is superior to mine.

Anyway.

Suffice it to say, the first question I ask when presented with Scripture to support claims of superiority is whether there are alternative explanations to these Scriptures that are consistent, simpler, and make sense. But as I said, I didn’t come here to debate and intend to be very slow to be pulled into one.

Dave Armstrong actually is one apologist I have read quite a bit of his stuff on over the internet. As I said, he is at his strongest in making the case that the relationship us to you is not “us superior you inferior”. He is at his weakest (at least to me) in making the case that the relationship is flipped.

 

[NotTooSmart]

No need to shut up here. We are as patient as we can be (I should really just speak for myself on this one). It is like showing non-Catholic Christians an apple, and they say no it isn’t an apple, it is a tomato when it so clearly is an apple. In other words, some people here is that they either don’t want to learn about Catholicism, try to defame it, say it is wrong, point out all these abuses, even when most of them are either untrue, or exaggerated, they simply just don’t get it. They don’t want to research the Catholic faith, even when there is extreme evidence in Scripture, with historical evidence as well as architectural evidence it gets frustrating. That is when the charity gets questionable. We are human, and as Jesus said if they don’t listen, shake the sand off your sandals and move on. I just hope you realize this and understand our faith first before you can comment about it.

It must be frustrating to be oh-so-convinced that you are right and I am wrong and then have folks like me who are oh-so-slow to embrace your truth.

On the other hand it must be equally frustrating for those who come to these forums oh-so-convinced that they are right and that you Catholics are wrong and then have you all refuse to embrace them.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Yes and that is my point. If church ‘A’ claims it has all of the truth and that churches ‘B’-‘Z’ are in error to the extent that they disagree with church ‘A’, that is clearly a superior - inferior relationship claim.

Well, did the Roman Church, which saint Paul praised (Rom. 1:8), have all the truth in your opinion? And if so, wouldn’t that make it, in a certain sense, “superior” to all other churches which disagreed with its teachings?

My expectations are both that they can clearly present this to me in such a way that no other explanations are credible.

That’s fair. I for one certainly believe that if you examine the Scriptural and historical data objectively (and prayerfully), God, in his own time and way, will lead you to see that, indeed, “no other explanations are credible.” And further, that if you do find find your way into His One Church, you will discover that which so many others before you have, namely, a very great peace, even amidst the storms of violent heresies which have not ceased to besiege her from her founding, and which must continue to do so to the last day. (I might note in passing that, unlike the Catholic Church, I have never heard of a single Protestant church complain of heresies (either from within or without) which had continually sought their destruction, even from their beginnings).

Furthermore, in examining the testimonies of those in church ‘A’ I expect much more fruit of the spirit (love,joy,peace etc) and Christlike character.

I understand what you’re saying my friend, but simply informing others that Rome holds the Primacy does not, IMHO, qualify as lacking the “fruit of the spirit (love,joy,peace etc) and Christlike character.”

Now below is a link to a short sermon from a 5th century Eastern Bishop. I hope you’ll take a few moments to read it. If you do, you’ll see that both the bishop and congregation speak an “anathema” (i.e., let them be “shut out from the Church”) on those who hold to certain erring opinions.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5559484&postcount=1

Assuming now that you’ve read it, I ask you: do you think the bishops (Paul of Emesia and Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria) and their congregation, lack a “Christlike character” for pronouncing their respective anathemas? Do you believe they were exhibiting a “superior - inferior relationship” to those who held not to the same faith?

God bless.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Well, did the Roman Church, which saint Paul praised (Rom. 1:8), have all the truth in your opinion? And if so, wouldn’t that make it, in a certain sense, “superior” to all other churches which disagreed with its teachings?

I think there are other simpler, more natural explanations to the Scriptures cited other than “the Roman Church had the fullness of truth and the remaining churches in the other cities did not”. Again I did not come here to debate, but since you are asking me.

That’s fair. I for one certainly believe that if you examine the Scriptural and historical data objectively (and prayerfully), God, in his own time and way, will lead you to see that, indeed, “no other explanations are credible.” And further, that if you do find find your way into His One Church, you will discover that which so many others before you have, namely, a very great peace, even amidst the storms of violent heresies which have not ceased to besiege her from her founding, and which must continue to do so to the last day. (I might note in passing that, unlike the Catholic Church, I have never heard of a single Protestant church complain of heresies (either from within or without) which had continually sought their destruction, even from their beginnings).

Just one comment. Although we may not use the term heresy and heretics (probably because it is loaded and probably because some of our forefathers were burned at the stake for being heretics), the same exists here. Perhaps you have not heard of “Name-it-claim-it” or “prosperity gospel” and the like.

I understand what you’re saying my friend, but simply informing others that Rome holds the Primacy does not, IMHO, qualify as lacking the “fruit of the spirit (love,joy,peace etc) and Christlike character.”

I agree that proclaiming your doctrine is not a violation of Christlike character.

Actually I have reread this thread again. What seems to be going on here between the Catholic posters and the Lutheran posters is an assumption by the Catholic posters that the souls of the Lutherans are somehow in danger because they do not become Catholics. I could go back and give quotes.

What I found interesting was that eventually one of the Lutherans gave links of high level discussions between high-level Catholics and high-level Lutherans. Although the stuff in these links was lengthy so I did not have time to go through them, somehow I really doubt that the tone of these discussions was “you Lutherans are wrong and your souls are in danger because you do not become Catholic”.

So now what I am getting is a disconnect between the official position of the church you all attend and you all (or perhaps more accurately some of you all). And that is “interesting” in itself.

Now below is a link to a short sermon from a 5th century Eastern Bishop. I hope you’ll take a few moments to read it. If you do, you’ll see that both the bishop and congregation speak an “anathema” (i.e., let them be “shut out from the Church”) on those who hold to certain erring opinions.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5559484&postcount=1

Assuming now that you’ve read it, I ask you: do you think the bishops (Paul of Emesia and Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria) and their congregation, lack a “Christlike character” for pronouncing their respective anathemas? Do you believe they were exhibiting a “superior - inferior relationship” to those who held not to the same faith?

God bless.

I have read that link. A couple of comments.

Now I personally am uncomfortable with “anathemas”, but I do notice that it is used in Scripture at least one place. So that might be me.

I do observe that the object of these anathemas are groups that deny the trinity. The present day equivalents might be Jehovah Witnesses.

With respect to the Early Church Fathers…

In the apologetic web sites I have seen I have observed claims by Catholics that the Early Church fathers were more Catholic than Protestant. Then I have read counter-claims by Protestants that the Early Church fathers were more Protestant than Catholic.

At this point I get lost. For me to arbitrate in this debate would mean that I would somehow have to become an expert in Early Church fathers. This is way beyond my level of education since I am just a everyday workingman Christian with a degree and job in computers.

But in reading these debates it did occur to me that it is a logical fallacy to read the writings of the Early Church fathers and assume 1700 years after the fact that “they are on my side”. This is because 1700 years of history and change in the church occurred that they have absolutely no knowledge of and we have absolutely no idea how they would react had they been exposed to it. For anybody to assume “they are on my side” seems to me to be…well presumptuous at best.

Anyway, I am gone today fyi.

 

[wisdomseeker]

**

Why is this a problem for you?

do you think it is right to play with God?

It most certainly is true. They do not accept papal primacy. It is not a matter of joining, it is a matter of exploring, at least for me.

no, it is not true. you are misinformed on this one.

I asked you first. And I didn’t say the CC had no authority. Who said we use the Bible Alone?

we know the CC is trinitaryl. the Word of God, OT, and teaching Magisterium.

do you claim the same?
.
My religion is Christianity. I have never heard the Lutheran Church describe modern day Christians that way.

no. you follow those who claim to be Christians. there is no deceit in God. where there is lies, hte HS is not in it.

I thought you knew me better than that.

this is settled then.

**
And there is no Truth without charity, or at least, Truth can be clouded by a lack of charity. I appreciate your love and concern, and the feelings are mutual.

Jon****

no jon. Truth is not based on charity. Truth is Truth no matter what. i can give you plenty of quotes from Jesus and the Apostles that according to your standard, they are not charible at all.
people are getting obsessed with this word. carefull, this word can also be used to intimidate people. see what i mean?

:byzsoc:

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I think there are other simpler, more natural explanations to the Scriptures cited other than “the Roman Church had the fullness of truth and the remaining churches in the other cities did not”. Again I did not come here to debate, but since you are asking me.

Just one comment. Although we may not use the term heresy and heretics (probably because it is loaded and probably because some of our forefathers were burned at the stake for being heretics), the same exists here. Perhaps you have not heard of “Name-it-claim-it” or “prosperity gospel” and the like.

I agree that proclaiming your doctrine is not a violation of Christlike character.

Actually I have reread this thread again. What seems to be going on here between the Catholic posters and the Lutheran posters is an assumption by the Catholic posters that the souls of the Lutherans are somehow in danger because they do not become Catholics. I could go back and give quotes.

What I found interesting was that eventually one of the Lutherans gave links of high level discussions between high-level Catholics and high-level Lutherans. Although the stuff in these links was lengthy so I did not have time to go through them, somehow I really doubt that the tone of these discussions was “you Lutherans are wrong and your souls are in danger because you do not become Catholic”.

So now what I am getting is a disconnect between the official position of the church you all attend and you all (or perhaps more accurately some of you all). And that is “interesting” in itself.

I have read that link. A couple of comments.

Now I personally am uncomfortable with “anathemas”, but I do notice that it is used in Scripture at least one place. So that might be me.

I do observe that the object of these anathemas are groups that deny the trinity. The present day equivalents might be Jehovah Witnesses.

With respect to the Early Church Fathers…

In the apologetic web sites I have seen I have observed claims by Catholics that the Early Church fathers were more Catholic than Protestant. Then I have read counter-claims by Protestants that the Early Church fathers were more Protestant than Catholic.

At this point I get lost. For me to arbitrate in this debate would mean that I would somehow have to become an expert in Early Church fathers. This is way beyond my level of education since I am just a everyday workingman Christian with a degree and job in computers.

But in reading these debates it did occur to me that it is a logical fallacy to read the writings of the Early Church fathers and assume 1700 years after the fact that “they are on my side”. This is because 1700 years of history and change in the church occurred that they have absolutely no knowledge of and we have absolutely no idea how they would react had they been exposed to it. For anybody to assume “they are on my side” seems to me to be…well presumptuous at best.

Anyway, I am gone today fyi.

There wasn’t a Protestant around to see the light of day until the 1500’s. The world was Catholic in belief. To say Christianity/Catholicism was wrong for the first 1500 years is totally ridiculous when there is so much proof that the Catholic church is the church Christ founded.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You may not like to hear this, but reading this thread in entirety has pushed my opinion more towards the negative end with respect to Catholicism.

so? what is new? many blames the Catholic Church for many things. nothing new here.

 

[JonNC]

---

OPriginally posted by JonNC
My religion is Christianity. I have never heard the Lutheran Church describe modern day Christians that way.

Again, that’s not what your Church says.
CCC

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

And unlike some Protestants, I consider Catholics my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You may not like to hear this, but reading this thread in entirety has pushed my opinion more towards the negative end with respect to Catholicism.

Yep. A thread like this can do that, but I don’t believe that some of the opinions expressed here are held by all Catholics, at least not in the tone that some express it. Of course, many Protestants show a lack of comity as well. We have no room for self-righteousness.
The “I’m right, you’re wrong” approach, regardless of it’s user, always fails to bring people together. But this is a question of the tactics of posters, not their faith.

Jon

 

[wisdomseeker]

Again, that’s not what your Church says.
CCC

And unlike some Protestants, I consider Catholics my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jon,

remember the CC is calling all to come into the Church. if they reject, they might not reach salvation. i cant tell you for sure for i am not God. but it is a risk that they will take.

remember Jesus gave the Word to One Church.
the Bible was taking illicitly from the CC. the promise was made to the Church built by Christ and not to those who read the Bible and claim.

it would be like the gentiles coming into Israel and steal the OT from Jews the chosen people. no one steals from God and profit.

may God give you the Grace to see and hear the Truth.

 

[emeraldcoast]

Do we need THE Church? Depends on what that means. If we mean the institutional church made up of a centralized bureaucracy, nope. Jesus never instituted that kind of church. No buildings, no heirarchy, no thousands of arcane rules (in fact, He seems to have preached against that!). If we mean the church built on faith in God and love for one another, the church that Jesus showed us, taught us about, and led us toward through his life, death and resurrection, then YES. We do need that church.

What an awesome post! Thank you!

God Bless!

 

[jake23]

Obviousely there are many lost protestants on here who have joined this sight yet do not wish to learn the truths of Christ. This is sad and vein of all of you!

 

[wisdomseeker]

What an awesome post! Thank you!

God Bless!

Remember Jesus gave the Word to One Church.
the Bible was taking illicitly from the CC. the promise was made to the Church built by Christ and not to those who read the Bible and claim.

it would be like the gentiles coming into Israel and steal the OT from Jews the chosen people. no one steals from God and profit.

 

[Matariel]

So it’s “the Church’s right to choose” what comes out of her ? That is an argument for abortion… The Church can’'t abort its past, even if it does not like the children it bears. In some sense Lutheranism came from the CC, & shares in the past of the CC.​

That’s a nonsensical analogy. Sorry, it doesn’t merit a response.