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

[LatinRight]

Yes I know the teachings of the RCC. Before we move on lets start with 817 In this ONE and ONLY Chuch, read that and come back. I have my grandson and he is very demanding today does not like me on computer. Read that and I will get back as soon as possible. Thanks

God bless Rinnie,

I READ CCC 817.

To understand CCC 817 we must study it in the light of CCC 818, 819, 1271, 847, 848, 1260, etc.

From the above teachings of the RCC we can see God saves the people in TWO WAYS:

ONE WAY OF SAVING THE PEOPLE IS DESCRIBED IN Matt.28:19-20; CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.

In our days, this way of savings goes through the RCC, Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Churches.

THE OTHER WAY OF SAVING THE PEOPLE IS DESCRIBED IN CCC 847, 848, 1260, etc.

Our brothers and sisters/elect described in CCC 847, 848, 1260 etc. saved solely by God IN THE WAY KNOWN ONLY TO GOD and God baptized them into the Universal Church / Body of Christ / Bride of Christ** WITHOUT they become members of the RCC, Protestant, Anglican or Orthodox Churches and WITHOUT anything to do with their administrations.**

This is above an entirely DIFFERENT WAY OF SALVATION, the way the members of this Church saved known only to God and they saved by solely God.

The birthday of the Universal Church / Body of Christ / Bride of Christ is Pentecost, founded by Christ.

At the day of Pentecost started the salvation of the world in TWO WAYS by baptizing the faithful into the Body of Christ / Bride of Christ / Universal Church.

The members of the RCC started their saving works at Pentecost as it is described in Matt.28:19-20, etc. by baptizing the faithful into the Body of Christ / Bride of Christ / Universal Church.

Today the above saving works goes through the members of the RCC, Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox Churches by baptizing the faithful into the Body of Christ / Bride of Christ / Universal Church. – Baptism is not into any denomination but into the Body of Christ / Bride of Christ / Universal Church.

At Pentecost God also started His WORLDWIDE SAVING WORKS IN A DIFFERENT CHURCH as it is described in CCC 847, 848, 1260 etc. by baptizing the faithful into the Body of Christ / Bride of Christ / Universal Church.

At Pentecost SIMULTANEOUSLY the TWO ABOVE Churches came into existence, the RCC as a True Church and the Church described in CCC 847, 848, 1260 etc. as a True Church as well.

In BOTH of the above Churches (THEY ARE ONE IN THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH / BODY OF CHRIST, SEPARATE IN ADMINISTRATION) the saving works from Pentecost continues even today and will continue until Christ will come back with His Bride/us. – CCC 677.

It is possible (only God knows) the Church described in CCC 847, 848, 1260 etc. far bigger then the RCC, Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox Churches combined together. – I hope it is far bigger, I wish everyone saved.

God bless,

LatinRight

 

[rcwitness]

I have not read the CCC articles mentioned. However, what LR is proposing seems like it should be so simple. Either it is a valid result of the CCC or it is not.

If it is not valid I can understand why Catholic posters would wish it had not been presented since it would be false information which I agree confuses a person like me.

If it is valid I can understand why many Catholics would have a huge problem.

Vatican I and Vatican II need to be understood together. Vatican II did not cancel Vatican I, but clarified things in regard to valid Christians in situations that cause them to be in a separated state from the visible, on, true Catholic Church.

Dogma of the faith from Vatican I:

Session 4 : 18 July 1870

Chapter 1

1. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Chapter 2

1. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Chapter 4

1. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks*ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

 

[rcwitness]

God bless Rinnie,

I don’t saying that at all.

Because the RCC declared CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc. the Protestant, Anglican and

Orthodox Churches became true Churches, **the RCC didn’t lose even an iota (lost

nothing at all), still has the fullness of the truth, this is not changed.**

As the Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Churches became true Churches, the RCC is

a True Church. ** - Cannot be One True Church when the other Churches are True

Churches as well.**

God bless,

LatinRight

Protestant “churches” did not “become” true churches because of Vatican II. Vatican II acknowledged that those communities were not deprived of the Holy Spirit, salvation, and valid Baptism. This didn’t happen because of Vatican II, but was merely recognized by Vatican II. There still, is only One Church, which these communities have a partial and imperfect union with.

 

[LatinRight]

I have not read the CCC articles mentioned. However, what LR is proposing seems like it should be so simple. Either it is a valid result of the CCC or it is not.

If it is not valid I can understand why Catholic posters would wish it had not been presented since it would be false information which I agree confuses a person like me.

If it is valid I can understand why many Catholics would have a huge problem.

God bless Wannano,

I send you some paragraphs of the 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."

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” 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.” 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, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church:** “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”**

The RCC officially teach the Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Churches are True Churches and their members Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church!!!

God bless

LatinRight

 

[rcwitness]

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” 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.” 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, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity”.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.

Christian communities are not churches independent of the Catholic Church. They have members who, through belief and Baptism, are in a communion with the One Church. Yet there is a constant call to full unity by the Church. To know this call and reject it is dangerously rejecting the Communion Jesus speaks of in John 6.

 

[RebeccaJ]

770 The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only “with the eyes of faith” that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life.

Non-Catholic Christian Churches and the Catholic Church, constitute together, the invisible Church. A spiritual reality that we are joined, via our baptisms, to Christ, and Christ has but one Body.

The Catholic Church recognizes this invisible (spiritual) reality in the full reception of baptized Christians who are not re-baptized. They are confirmed and receive first Communion, uniting them fully and sacramentally to the Body of Christ.

Just as an addition. Christian unity is an action of the Holy Spirit. Working towards unity is aligning oneself to the will of Jesus, our Head, who calls us to be one as He is One with the Father. This oneness, is a reality of Christ’s Church. It is. The oneness of Christ’s Church is not something that is debatable as it would be like debating the unity of the Holy Trinity.

Ecumenism of VII, calls us to bring the invisible unity of the Body of Christ, to a visible unity. This “work” is a cooperation, on our part, with the Holy Spirit. Seek to unite, not to divide. Of course, the Catholic position is that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of Truth, and so the visible unity we speak of is fulfilled in and through the Catholic Church, as it is Christ’s Church.

 

[PJM]

exactly and what I am trying to get him to see is that just because the RCC accepts all truth found in other Church’s, it is because of the RCC that the truth they have even exist.

But while we accept them yes as Christians, if they were baptised in the Trinity and agree we are united to them through baptism, in no means takes away the One True Church.

We accept any truth that they preach or teach that was given to them from the CC.

But while we accept the truth they have, we also must be honest and not accept the false teachings they have. Many deny Christ in the Eucharist. They say a symbol. etc.

Many deny the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins by Priests given to them by Christ.

The RCC is the FULLNESS of truth. No where in the CCC does it say that the RCC is not the one true church. It actually says the opposite. As I have shown him.

Thank YOU so much.

After numerous attempts to dialog with LOGIC and Truth with our FRIEND; “LatinRight”, and making no progress, I [ME] decided I would just stop commenting on his positions

I’m reluctant to do that, BUT he just isn’t getting it:shrug:

GBY

Patrick [the OP].

 

[Wannano]

God bless Wannano,

I send you some paragraphs of the 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."

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” 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.” 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, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church:** “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church**.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

The RCC officially teach the Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Churches are True Churches and their members Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church!!!

God bless

LatinRight

This certainly is more Christ like than what was practiced in former centuries. Thankfully positive changes are happening in the Catholic Church.

 

[Wannano]

Christian communities are not churches independent of the Catholic Church. They have members who, through belief and Baptism, are in a communion with the One Church. Yet there is a constant call to full unity by the Church. To know this call and reject it is dangerously rejecting the Communion Jesus speaks of in John 6.

I don’t know of any Church out there that rejects the Communion Jesus speaks of in John 6. Is there a church you know of who does not practice Communion?

Peace, RC.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t know of any Church out there that rejects the Communion Jesus speaks of in John 6. Is there a church you know of who does not practice Communion?

Peace, RC.

Do you receive the actual sacrificed Lamb of God in your Communion?

I only know of the Catholic and the Orthodox Communion as being a True participation in the Sacrifice of Calvary.

 

[Wannano]

Do you receive the actual sacrificed Lamb of God in your Communion?

I only know of the Catholic and the Orthodox Communion as being a True participation in the Sacrifice of Calvary.

We receive the actual sacrificed Lamb of God in our heart and lives when we accept the fact that He has accepted us, then we strive to make Him Lord and Master. There is no need to receive over and over again when He is there all the time. Communion is a beautiful reminder of what He gave to accomplish our salvation. Like He instructed “do this in remembrance of me.”

We obviously have different understandings but are still brothers! At least for my part! And there is no way I am insisting you need to adopt my concept to be saved either.

 

[rcwitness]

We receive the actual sacrificed Lamb of God in our heart and lives when we accept the fact that He has accepted us, then we strive to make Him Lord and Master. There is no need to receive over and over again when He is there all the time. Communion is a beautiful reminder of what He gave to accomplish our salvation. Like He instructed “do this in remembrance of me.”

Accepting/receiving Jesus “in our hearts” is necessary to receive His body and blood in a worthy manner. But it doesn’t guarantee one is obeying His call to the Altar of Communion.

We obviously have different understandings but are still brothers! At least for my part! And there is no way I am insisting you need to adopt my concept to be saved either.

Yes we do. And I am not telling you anything “of myself” when I say, “Come to His Catholic Eucharist!” Neither should I boast that I am partaking with such a great devotion. I have faults. Even ugly faults that you would be disappointed to see, if you did see. Though I believe you would be forgiving.

But it’s His Catholic Eucharist that is our call to “Come to Him” that compels me to invite all others. I don’t deny any Believing Christian the right to be called a Christian. But how can I deny the faith that I am convicted in, and say, “sure, your communion is equal to the Catholic Communion.”? I would not be professing my faith honestly.

When Scripture tells us “Believe in Him, and you will be saved”, it’s the “believe in Him” part that has deeper meaning than some think. It means obeying His commands, and accepting the judgment of the Church, in order to sometimes “know” what His commands mean.

If I have a sharp disagreement with you about this, how can we both “take it to the Church, in order to come to a mutual faith and practice”? We cannot, because His Eucharist has been compromised! Is it myself, or you that is compromising His Eucharist? If I would be willing to go to “the Church” with you, but you said, “there is not One True Church to go to”, then who is right and who is wrong?

If there is One True Church, then you and I should be able to go before it, and receive a Holy Confirmation regarding our disagreement.

 

[mark_a]

Dear friend in Christ;

If you hold to the position that the RCC is NOT the one true Chuch founded and desired by Christ, please explain why this is?

God Bless you

Patrick

I’m late to the party, but in case it hasn’t been pointed out, the RCC is part of the one true church: the Catholic Church.

 

[PluniaZ]

I’m late to the party, but in case it hasn’t been pointed out, the RCC is part of the one true church: the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church consists of those who are in agreement with the Church of Rome - the Formula of Hormisdas.

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%20Formula%20of%20Pope%20St%20Hormisd

 

[Wannano]

Accepting/receiving Jesus “in our hearts” is necessary to receive His body and blood in a worthy manner. But it doesn’t guarantee one is obeying His call to the Altar of Communion.

Yes we do. And I am not telling you anything “of myself” when I say, “Come to His Catholic Eucharist!” Neither should I boast that I am partaking with such a great devotion. I have faults. Even ugly faults that you would be disappointed to see, if you did see. Though I believe you would be forgiving.

But it’s His Catholic Eucharist that is our call to “Come to Him” that compels me to invite all others. I don’t deny any Believing Christian the right to be called a Christian. But how can I deny the faith that I am convicted in, and say, “sure, your communion is equal to the Catholic Communion.”? I would not be professing my faith honestly.

When Scripture tells us “Believe in Him, and you will be saved”, it’s the “believe in Him” part that has deeper meaning than some think. It means obeying His commands, and accepting the judgment of the Church, in order to sometimes “know” what His commands mean.

If I have a sharp disagreement with you about this, how can we both “take it to the Church, in order to come to a mutual faith and practice”? We cannot, because His Eucharist has been compromised! Is it myself, or you that is compromising His Eucharist? If I would be willing to go to “the Church” with you, but you said, “there is not One True Church to go to”, then who is right and who is wrong?

there is One True Church, then you and I should be able to go before it, and receive a Holy Confirmation regarding our disagreement./QUOTE]

 

[Wannano]

Accepting/receiving Jesus “in our hearts” is necessary to receive His body and blood in a worthy manner. But it doesn’t guarantee one is obeying His call to the Altar of Communion.

Yes we do. And I am not telling you anything “of myself” when I say, “Come to His Catholic Eucharist!” Neither should I boast that I am partaking with such a great devotion. I have faults. Even ugly faults that you would be disappointed to see, if you did see. Though I believe you would be forgiving.

But it’s His Catholic Eucharist that is our call to “Come to Him” that compels me to invite all others. I don’t deny any Believing Christian the right to be called a Christian. But how can I deny the faith that I am convicted in, and say, “sure, your communion is equal to the Catholic Communion.”? I would not be professing my faith honestly.

When Scripture tells us “Believe in Him, and you will be saved”, it’s the “believe in Him” part that has deeper meaning than some think. It means obeying His commands, and accepting the judgment of the Church, in order to sometimes “know” what His commands mean.

If I have a sharp disagreement with you about this, how can we both “take it to the Church, in order to come to a mutual faith and practice”? We cannot, because His Eucharist has been compromised! Is it myself, or you that is compromising His Eucharist? If I would be willing to go to “the Church” with you, but you said, “there is not One True Church to go to”, then who is right and who is wrong?

If there is One True Church, then you and I should be able to go before it, and receive a Holy Confirmation regarding our disagreement

 

[rcwitness]

For the time being explain what you mean by Holy Confirmation.

Yes, sorry, I did not mean the sacrament. I should not have capitalized. I meant as in affirmation, or judgment.

 

[rcwitness]

 

[Wannano]

Accepting/receiving Jesus “in our hearts” is necessary to receive His body and blood in a worthy manner. But it doesn’t guarantee one is obeying His call to the Altar of Communion.

Yes we do. And I am not telling you anything “of myself” when I say, “Come to His Catholic Eucharist!” Neither should I boast that I am partaking with such a great devotion. I have faults. Even ugly faults that you would be disappointed to see, if you did see. Though I believe you would be forgiving.

But it’s His Catholic Eucharist that is our call to “Come to Him” that compels me to invite all others. I don’t deny any Believing Christian the right to be called a Christian. But how can I deny the faith that I am convicted in, and say, “sure, your communion is equal to the Catholic Communion.”? I would not be professing my faith honestly.

When Scripture tells us “Believe in Him, and you will be saved”, it’s the “believe in Him” part that has deeper meaning than some think. It means obeying His commands, and accepting the judgment of the Church, in order to sometimes “know” what His commands mean.

If I have a sharp disagreement with you about this, how can we both “take it to the Church, in order to come to a mutual faith and practice”? We cannot, because His Eucharist has been compromised! Is it myself, or you that is compromising His Eucharist? If I would be willing to go to “the Church” with you, but you said, “there is not One True Church to go to”, then who is right and who is wrong?

If there is One True Church, then you and I should be able to go before it, and receive a Holy Confirmation regarding our disagreement.

I just wrote a lengthy reply to you and can’t send it because I was logged in after something or other…maybe it’s a sign I was not supposed to send it?

Basically we have differing viewpoints on how we receive Jesus. There, is it that simple perhaps?

 

[rcwitness]

I just wrote a lengthy reply to you and can’t send it because I was logged in after something or other…maybe it’s a sign I was not supposed to send it?

Basically we have differing viewpoints on how we receive Jesus. There, is it that simple perhaps?

Oh shoot! I’ve done that, it is frustrating. Sorry man. Hey, if you get the time and there is something that you really want to say, I’m around. If you want to move on, I understand. I’m sure you have a pretty sound perspective from the other point of view.

To tell you the truth, I could probably offer a pretty compelling counter argument myself… I do have a decent sense of the counter points.