WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ?

[Wannano]

**THE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE CHANGE **

1. The members of the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches become True Christians.
2. As the True Christians are the True Churches, as the results the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches become True Churches.
3. As the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches **become True Churches, the RCC could not be any longer The One True Church but a True Church **a part of the Universal Church with the parts of the other True Churches.

Continue

Thank you so much for your clarification. This makes so much more sense and actually makes the Catholic Church more appealing to me.

I do not understand why the Church does not spell this out to the adherents in this kind of understandable language. That would eliminate a lot of discussion here at caf I am thinking.

 

[rcwitness]

Are Catholics who do not accept the Vatican II changes considered heretics?

I think this question deserves it’s own thread. However, I probably should not have replied “no” to it.

Here is an excerpt from Wiki, regarding dissenters of Vat.II:

The most recent edition of 1983 Code of Canon Law states that Catholics may not disregard the teaching of an ecumenical council even if it does not propose such as definitive. Accordingly, it also maintains that present living Pope alone judges the criterion of membership for being in communio with the Church.[45] The present canon law further articulates:

Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a Doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.[46][47]​

 

[steve_b]

We’ll see in the next life

 

[PJM]

Some EOs, myself included, would say that a least the RCC has a very close connection to the True Church. For whatever that is worth.

THANKS my FRIEND

From an EO that quite a lot

GBY

 

[PJM]

the catholic church is the church jesus established. Here’s a condensed 1st 400 yrs of history #34

i have a question for you

when is the 1st time in history, in writing, properly referenced, where we see the name “orthodox church” ?

thanks

gby

 

[PJM]

Hmm…if Jesus Himself is your Pope, then Jesus must guide you directly. And you must be infallible therefore.

Everyone will certainly agree they don’t want to be a member of a church that is built or named by human hands or reasoning. And, don’t we know of churches that are indeed named by human hands? Named after fallible humans? We also know which ones they are.

I guess that would define the “True” Church, one that does not go by human reasoning, but is officially sanctioned by God to interpret the bible and define dogma. The Catholic Church claims to be such, and the Mormon Church and the Watchtower Society also make that claim.

Which has the stronger claim?

You make an interspersing point, however even t e POPE is literally Infallible when OFFICIALLY Teaching on Faith and Morals, nothing else, and even then it must be declared an “Infallible teaching”

Thanks

GBY

 

[PJM]

Yes, I believe Jesus will guide us directly. The Lord’s Prayer asks God to do that. No, I am not infallible, just like the Pope. I understand he goes to confession.

And you don’t because? What you don’t believe in

1 John 1:8-9

1 Jn 5:16-17

& John 20:19-23:shrug:

Pray about it my friend

 

[PJM]

Romans 8 : 14 -16

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; for we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, ABBA, FATHER. The Spirit itself be are the witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”

Pope, papa, Father, Daddy!

OK

BUT should not being actually"Led by the Spirit" actually mean tha t the SPIRITS TRUTH can ONLY be singular per defined issue? Nothing else is logical or even possible.

And IF so, how then can there be such a multiplicity of non-catholic-churches? As NO “church” can be separated from its OWN freely selected SET of faith beliefs?

GBY!

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, I believe Jesus will guide us directly. The Lord’s Prayer asks God to do that. No, I am not infallible, just like the Pope. I understand he goes to confession.

The Pope is not infallible. He, by virtue of his office (Bishop of the See of Rome), has the gift of Infallibility, when Teaching the faithful, in matters of faith and morals. Likewise, the College of Bishops share this.

It’s like me saying, “The Scriptures have errors because those human authors sinned.”

The Pope is NOT impeccable. So yes, he must confess his sins like any other member of the Church.

 

[mackbrislawn]

But who gets to be the norm? Thus Jesus was a heretic in his Jewish world. The Apostle Peter, the first Pope in the Catholic lens would have been a heretic until Paul confronted him publicly over his stance on the Jew/Gentile thing.

That is the question, who gets to be the norm? Or is there such a thing as the norm? Maybe everything is relative?

However, Jesus said, You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Hence truth is not relative. This implies there is a norm, and it is important to recognize it. Since Jesus said we will know the truth, there must be a way to know it.

How?

There are a number of “true” churches, varying somewhat from one another. Does one of these get to be the norm? One way is to ask, well, which churches are derivative? That is, derived or split off from another church? Derivative churches certainly can’t be the norm.

In western Europe which church is it that is not derivative in some way from another church? The only one in western Europe is the Roman church. Is it the norm? It claims to be. Are there other churches that claim to be?

Actually, yes. The Mormon Church claims to be the norm, and can receive revelations from God. The Watchtower Society claims to be God’s channel of communication to mankind. Are these churches true churches? How far away from a “norm” does a church have to be, in order not to be a “true” church? To be heretical? Who decides?

 

[PJM]

Romans 8 : 14 -16

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; for we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, ABBA, FATHER. The Spirit itself be are the witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”

Pope, papa, Father, Daddy!

Dear friend,

PLEASE read my POST #464

& then reread paying vert close attention to the singular tense words of the Cathlic NT Bible Authors, who where and are guided by that VERY Holy Spirit:thumbsup:

Mt 10: 1-5

Mt 16:18-19

John 17: 17-20

Mt 28: 19-20

Each of which when rightly understood is:

Precise [not easy to misunderstand]

Direct: Jesus [GOD] addressing His Apostles and through them by absolute necessity ]compare Mt 10: 5-8 to Mt 28:19-20] & His Apostles

& Exclusive

GBY

 

[PJM]

"

Reading the posts of this tread I have find the following three statements:

(1.) NOT one time in the entire bible can it be shown that GOD ever desired, accepted, tolerated, permitted, or even overlooked ANY other set of faith beliefs than those he taught, commanded, desired and protected with jealously & justice.
"
Case in point:

Acts of the apostles:

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

THANKS, well done!

 

[PJM]

As to the original question, one thing that makes it tough is all the evidence that God is at work in many denominations making people holy and performing miracles. It seems like perhaps the universal church is trans-denominational.

Interesting,

As the OP I have addressed this issue already several times in this STRING

The Foundation is that TRUTH can only be singular per defined issue; nothing else is possible or even logical

NO “church” can be separated from its OWN freely chosen set of Faith beliefs [please see my POST #464

Until and unless these to facts can be grasped; then no right understanding is possible

And as you [I think] said in a prior post; “Nowhere in the bible CAN it be shown that GOD even one time desired, tolerated, accepted ot even ver looked ANY competing set of faith beliefs and practices”

GBY

 

[PJM]

CCC 848 does not say the RCC is not the one true church, has plural truths. And where does 1260 deny any of the 3 truths above. 1260 says every man who is ignorant to the gospel of Christ and HIS CHURCH but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had know its necessity.

And by the way I do not understand number one that you stated. God has never taught plural truths so I could never see any contradiction in the truth. Maybe its my misunderstanding and you could help me understand what you are saying there. Thanks

Our friend Latin Right ME thinks is posing as a Catholic" And certainly does NOT reflect our beautiful Catholic Faith in His post that I have read The consistancy of HIS errors leads me to this conclusion.

Thanks

GBY

Patrick [the OP]

 

[PJM]

Doesn’t the whole spectrum from Catholic to Protestant have the same core doctrine? Do we need more than what the Apostles Creed proclaims to see the unity? It is not ok to be a church unto ourselves (isn’t that our problem now)? We are all a part of Jesus’ church whose mission is to make disciples. And they will know we are Christians by our love for each other.

We BOTH believe in

God as One Triune

Baptism as essential

BUT AFTER that comes very many differences varies a lot

AND because NO church can be separated from the freely chosen set of Faith beliefs;
there are Great and many highly significance difference between them and the RCC

 

[MichaelP3]

-]/-]-]/-] St Irenaeus, and other Fathers, Taught that the See of Rome gets to be the formal norm.

Irenaeus also wrote that Jesus lived into His 50s . And that was just a 100 years of “Tradition passed by mouth”.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Thus Jesus was a heretic in his Jewish world. The Apostle Peter, the first Pope in the Catholic lens would have been a heretic until Paul confronted him publicly over his stance on the Jew/Gentile thing.

Yes, I suppose Jesus was a heretic in his Jewish world.

Now, how about the Judaizers? Were they heretics? Paul thought so. Of course the Judaizers thought Paul was a heretic; and they perhaps had the stronger position since they were led by James himself, the brother of Jesus. Paul was simply an outsider who bullied his way into the apostolic college.

As far as Peter is concerned, it was Peter who was the one to accept Gentiles to begin with. So he was not a heretic as far as his teachings and beliefs went. It was Peter’s behavior that Paul called into question, not Peter’s beliefs nor stance. Peter’s behavior set a bad example.

 

[PJM]

So Catholic individuals never judge others? Yeah right…

Catholics should accept all who believe in the Gospel and sincerely seek to be Baptized in the Trinity, as Christians. Their perseverance in following Jesus from that point should seek to love God and neighbor, obeying His commands.

Their personal conviction of the fulness of Communion, has become muddied by centuries of divisions and sins of Catholics and heretics alike.

If my friend you suggest an equality of FAITH beliefs, such is impossible and certainly NOT the teaching of the Bible, history or the RCC

GBY

 

[PJM]

Hi LA

We have conversed a lot in the past. I have brought this up many times, you know all Reformation/Mainstream Protestant Churches do confess the Nicene Creed (You know this by now). I do it every Sunday as I have stated.

In that sense, see what a Saint is in this context of it. No absolute proof whatsoever relates it to the Saints as a Catholic would define it. At least not from the Bible or early Church writings.

Regards

BUT

does "profess it; ACTUALLY mean Understand AND accept it

GBY!

 

[rcwitness]

Irenaeus also wrote that Jesus lived into His 50s . And that was just a 100 years of “Tradition passed by mouth”.

Has the Church Confirmed that age? Do we know how old he was? Maybe he was interpreting Scripture alone, to come up with that theory… ?

I realize not everything he said was Sacred Tradition. Some was most likely opinions, or tradiations in the lesser sense.

Do you have that quote from him? I would like to see it in context.