Your thoughts please

[Sochi]

I limited the question as the OPQ to religious beliefs.

> If "Truth": exist, it must be singular. So there can be but One True Church. Why is your church the one? Or why is it not the One?

Your OPQ starts with "If ‘Truth’ exists, it must be singular…"So you are not saying it does, you say “if.” So if there is a Truth is unsubstantiated, so Truth in your OPQ is undefined and hypothetical, yet you postulate it as singular. Then you go on to propose that you meant Truth as a trinity:

From Father Hardon’s Catholic Distionary: [sic]
“TRUTH. Conformity of mind and reality. Three kinds of conformity give rise to three kinds of truth. In logical truth, the mind is conformed or in agreement with things outside the mind, either in assenting to what is or in denying what is not. Its opposite is error. In metaphysical or ontological truth, things conform with the mind. This is primary conformity, when something corresponds to the idea of its maker, and it is secondary conformity when something is intelligible and therefore true to anyone who knows it. In moral truth, what is said conforms with what is on one’s mind. This is truthfulness and its opposite is falsehood.”

That definition is incomplete, has semantic inconsistencies, and is designed to be support of a belief system based on forgone conclusions. That is the way of all religions, as they are based on beliefs as distinct from knowledge.

So from an unresolved episemological question “How do I know if there is a Truth that it is singular, and if so what is it?” you make a phenomenal leap to proposing that there is a 1/1 equivalency with a singular Truth and a hypothetical institution. That unimaginable leap has to be predicated on the imaginary premise of a foregone conclusion that you own the idea of that single institution which encompasses and is equivalent to ALL Truth. In other words, in your mind, you seem to have thought,

“Well, I “know” that in my personal belief system I hold, on what to me is unquestionable data, that my thoughts about the institution of the Catholic Church being the One True Church are equivalent to absolute Truth. Seeing myself as someone entrusted with that knowledge, how can I logically beat those poor “b’s” over their collective ignorant or recalcitrant heads with some irrefutable syllogism so that they can see that I am right?” (?PJM?~not really, just speculating.)

Further, if you start with a premise of a singularity of truth, you are not merely talking, as you claim, about a religious issue, as you are then including ALL phenomenon and the reasons for them as matters of fact and observation, not merely beliefs about them. The primary one you are trying to get at here is the one of Source and establishing an equivalency between that and the Church. But that is a matter of equating the institutionalized messenger with the Source itself, and by extension on the psychological level, you. And Source has at least three admissible solutions, a personal God doing it not necessarily holding first place. So your premise necessarily admits more then religious considerations. And all that isn’t even the real problem.

And it is OK, perfectly fine, laudable even, (on here) for you to hold with that, and definitely expected on these pages. And I admire, as I have said before, your faithfulness and loyalty, whatever I make of your reasonings. But do you not see anything amiss with how you proceeded? Or like Eusebius, are you simply interested in what cosmetically promotes your particular Church because you belong to it, and don’t care to examine what may not be complimentary to it. Or is this about again going into denial as you did surrounding the historic facts surrounding this? All I am saying here, PJM, is that even in my heaviest and most astute days of heavy proselytizing for the Catholic Church, I can’t imagine myself proposing the OPQ as something useful as rhetoric to convince even a believer. I’m just saying I think you really can do better than something so transparent. As before, I’m trying to watch your back.

 

[JRKH]

OK

For THIS discussion we can use:

“A Church is a building dedicated to God for Divine Worship”

Given this definition I would disagree with your opening post.
As a Catholic, I believe our building(s) are dedicated to the worship of the one truth. But there are many such buildings within the Catholic Church - hence - by your definition of “church” there are many churches so dedicated.

Yes BUT, I defined “church” for you; to which I would add the caveat: “with One Common set of faith beliefs”

As a Caveat to the above definition - a building has no beliefs…only the people within it would.

So it appears that you are really not talking about the building, but about the community within.
You might also be talking about the structure used by a given community or set of communities and this is where the definition of “Church” (or Ekklesia) becomes sticky.

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

]=House Harkonnen;12001878]There is only one church, the body of Christ.

All believers are part of it.

My particular denomination is an outward visible element of the church, as is yours and every denomination.

REALLY, and you found that in the bible somwhere? The Catholic church existed for 1,500 YEARS before Luther choose like you to leave the CC. And where in the bible does God even one time approve of COMPETING religions

Heb 6: 4-7
May I suggest you read Heb 6: 4-7 It weas written about 1,400 years before Luther and aimed at those who choose for whatever reason to leavve the ONLY Church; God and Faith that is God approved. This friend is not MY opinion, its what the Bible teaches. Amen:shrug:.

For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, Christ Himself in Catholic Holy Communion] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, [Have chosen to be Confirmed into the Catholic Faith] Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,*** [Have BEEN Rightly instructed in the Faith] ***** And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.**

“IMPOSSIBLE” here means UNLESS one repents and converts. Friend you not only gave up Catholicism; you actually gave UP GOD!

May He have mercy and guide to back to His singular truth.

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Your OPQ starts with "If ‘Truth’ exists, it must be singular…"So you are not saying it does, you say “if.” So if there is a Truth is unsubstantiated, so Truth in your OPQ is undefined and hypothetical, yet you postulate it as singular. Then you go on to propose that you meant Truth as a trinity:
That definition is incomplete, has semantic inconsistencies, and is designed to be support of a belief system based on forgone conclusions. That is the way of all religions, as they are based on beliefs as distinct from knowledge.

So from an unresolved episemological question “How do I know if there is a Truth that it is singular, and if so what is it?” you make a phenomenal leap to proposing that there is a 1/1 equivalency with a singular Truth and a hypothetical institution. That unimaginable leap has to be predicated on the imaginary premise of a foregone conclusion that you own the idea of that single institution which encompasses and is equivalent to ALL Truth. In other words, in your mind, you seem to have thought,

Further, if you start with a premise of a singularity of truth, you are not merely talking, as you claim, about a religious issue, as you are then including ALL phenomenon and the reasons for them as matters of fact and observation, not merely beliefs about them. The primary one you are trying to get at here is the one of Source and establishing an equivalency between that and the Church. But that is a matter of equating the institutionalized messenger with the Source itself, and by extension on the psychological level, you. And Source has at least three admissible solutions, a personal God doing it not necessarily holding first place. So your premise necessarily admits more then religious considerations. And all that isn’t even the real problem.

And it is OK, perfectly fine, laudable even, (on here) for you to hold with that, and definitely expected on these pages. And I admire, as I have said before, your faithfulness and loyalty, whatever I make of your reasonings. But do you not see anything amiss with how you proceeded? Or like Eusebius, are you simply interested in what cosmetically promotes your particular Church because you belong to it, and don’t care to examine what may not be complimentary to it. Or is this about again going into denial as you did surrounding the historic facts surrounding this? All I am saying here, PJM, is that even in my heaviest and most astute days of heavy proselytizing for the Catholic Church, I can’t imagine myself proposing the OPQ as something useful as rhetoric to convince even a believer. I’m just saying I think you really can do better than something so transparent. As before, I’m trying to watch your back.

Friend, I woun’t waste your time or mine by arguing with you. I WILL however pray for you.

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[Sochi]

Friend, I woun’t [sic]waste your time or mine by arguing with you. I WILL however pray for you.

God Bless,

Patrick

I acknowledge your evasion as such and won’t pursue it.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

REALLY, and you found that in the bible somwhere? The Catholic church existed for 1,500 YEARS before Luther choose like you to leave the CC. And where in the bible does God even one time approve of COMPETING religions

Heb 6: 4-7
May I suggest you read Heb 6: 4-7 It weas written about 1,400 years before Luther and aimed at those who choose for whatever reason to leavve the ONLY Church; God and Faith that is God approved. This friend is not MY opinion, its what the Bible teaches. Amen:shrug:.

For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, Christ Himself in Catholic Holy Communion] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, [Have chosen to be Confirmed into the Catholic Faith] Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,*** [Have BEEN Rightly instructed in the Faith] ***** And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.**

“IMPOSSIBLE” here means UNLESS one repents and converts. Friend you not only gave up Catholicism; you actually gave UP GOD!

May He have mercy and guide to back to His singular truth.

Patrick

Yikes, so I am not just a “separated brother” and not even a “heretic”, but completely given up on God himself as in totally apostate. Really? Is this post in good faith?

 

[Hans_W]

Yikes, so I am not just a “separated brother” and not even a “heretic”, but completely given up on God himself as in totally apostate. Really? Is this post in good faith?

Yes, there are some Catholics who have the mentality of a John McArthur, but in reverse.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yes, there are some Catholics who have the mentality of a John McArthur, but in reverse.

Indeed, I hope all Catholics are blessed in word in sacrament in their church, it would be nice for that to be reciprocated (and for the most part it is).

Also, just as Mr MacArthur, poster PJM has made some little improvements to scripture.

 

[PJM]

=House Harkonnen;12004546]Yikes, so I am not just a “separated brother” and not even a “heretic”, but completely given up on God himself as in totally apostate. Really? Is this post in good faith?

Not ONLY in “ggod faith” BUT Biblically grounded.

Provide EVIDENCE my friend, of where I/m wrong here

God Bless you, what I shared was NOT mere personal opinion; it’s what God wanted you to know. It’s HIS message I shared with you. Now its up to you to accept it or reject it.

Patrick

 

[PJM]

=House Harkonnen;12004647]Indeed, I hope all Catholics are blessed in word in sacrament in their church, it would be nice for that to be reciprocated (and for the most part it is).

Also, just as Mr MacArthur, poster PJM has made some little improvements to scripture.

Why THANK YOU friend,

God witholds right understanding as a penalty for opposing His singular- truth. AS a Soul is a teribble thing to lose, I was praying you’d get that message.

Because God permits your personal opinion, DOES NOT mean God arrpves ot it, or will tolerate it.

The Catholic Church has Christ REAL Presence; Luthers SADLY do not. So YES friend; that is abandoning God. Amen!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Not ONLY in “ggod faith” BUT Biblically grounded.

Provide EVIDENCE my friend, of where I/m wrong here

God Bless you, what I shared was NOT mere personal opinion; it’s what God wanted you to know. It’s HIS message I shared with you. Now its up to you to accept it or reject it.

Patrick

LOL.

Well to start, your own church, and your popes including JPII and BXVI and Francis teach that Protestants have not “abandoned God”. In error possibly yes, but they actually say the opposite of what you’re saying. That Protestants HAVENT abandoned God and our “ecclesial communities” are “instruments of salvation”.

Should I go with PJM or John Paul II and Benedict XVI for authentic Catholic teaching?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Why THANK YOU friend,

God witholds right understanding as a penalty for opposing His singular- truth. AS a Soul is a teribble thing to lose, I was praying you’d get that message.

Because God permits your personal opinion, DOES NOT mean God arrpves ot it, or will tolerate it.

The Catholic Church has Christ REAL Presence; Luthers SADLY do not. So YES friend; that is abandoning God. Amen!

That’s not what your last couple of popes have been teaching…

 

[MacQ]

For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, Christ Himself in Catholic Holy Communion] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, [Have chosen to be Confirmed into the Catholic Faith] Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,*** [Have BEEN Rightly instructed in the Faith] ***** And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.**

“IMPOSSIBLE” here means UNLESS one repents and converts. Friend you not only gave up Catholicism; you actually gave UP GOD!

May He have mercy and guide to back to His singular truth.

Patrick

That seems to be going a little FAR there Patrick. Not like the guy gave up Christ and became a rabid atheist. Hasn’t abandoned the word…hasn’t abandoned holy communion, by all evidence.
Seems to me he doesn’t really fit what you’ve written here.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

That seems to be going a little FAR there Patrick. Not like the guy gave up Christ and became a rabid atheist. Hasn’t abandoned the word…hasn’t abandoned holy communion, by all evidence.
Seems to me he doesn’t really fit what you’ve written here.

Indeed!

I wonder how many people what have “given up on God” continue to attend church weekly, read the scriptures, attend bible study, partake of the sacraments, have their children baptized etc?

 

[Protestor]

So friend show me ONE place in the bible where God allowed, tollreated or permitthed other faithsthat differed from HIS ONE FAITH. JUST ONE:shrug:

God Bless you,

What do you mean other faiths? Are you saying I am of another faith then yours? Either you seem to be implying things or maybe I am inferring things.

 

[benhur]

LOL.

Well to start, your own church, and your popes including JPII and BXVI and Francis teach that Protestants have not “abandoned God”. In error possibly yes, but they actually say the opposite of what you’re saying. That Protestants HAVENT abandoned God and our “ecclesial communities” are “instruments of salvation”.

Should I go with PJM or John Paul II and Benedict XVI for authentic Catholic teaching?

Actually I am wondering for the Pope’s/vatican’s statements (luciem gentum) may be tongue in cheek . For indeed they say other churches are 'instruments" of salvation, yet there is not salvation outside the CC, for all other churches owe their grace to CC. But it sounds nice on their part towards us, that we are brethren at all. Yet, to spoil the party they also seem to say, for someone like yourself who has left the CC, you might be eternally in peril if you left them unignorantly or if one having understandingly heard the CC message and refuse to become Catholic. Current benevolence is still a slave to the past perhaps, at least technically or dogmatically speaking. Thankfully many Catholics are not technical/dogmatic and indeed see us as obvious brothers.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Actually I am wondering for the Pope’s/vatican’s statements (luciem gentum) may be tongue in cheek . For indeed they say other churches are 'instruments" of salvation, yet there is not salvation outside the CC, for all other churches owe their grace to CC. But it sounds nice on their part towards us, that we are brethren at all. Yet, to spoil the party they also seem to say, for someone like yourself who has left the CC, you might be eternally in peril if you left them unignorantly or if one having understandingly heard the CC message and refuse to become Catholic. Current benevolence is still a slave to the past perhaps, at least technically or dogmatically speaking. Thankfully many Catholics are not technical/dogmatic and indeed see us as obvious brothers.

I am always vexed by that POV.

Who exits the Catholic Church knowing that it’s the true one? If you knew it was the true one would you not want to stay? Or at least stay and not really be satisfied but stay knowing its true.

I am not sure anyone falls under that heading.

 

[marywarfield]

If "Truth: exist, it MUST be singular.

So there can be but One True Church

Why is your church the one? Or why is it not the One?

God Bless you,
Patrick

For me it’s a matter of completeness or fullness.

1. I’m Catholic because this is where God put me.
2. I would probably say the same if I was Jewish
   or Muslim.
3. But not Protestant as Protestants reject too much
   that completes God for me. It is a “dilute” form of
   Catholicism. Same thing for Bahai- to me it is
   a dilution.

I tend to be of the mindset that says stay where you
originated and be that to the best of your ability
if you are a part of the big three- unless God hits you
with lightning- then you should probably reconsider your
options.

 

[Hans_W]

Actually I am wondering for the Pope’s/vatican’s statements (luciem gentum)
may be tongue in cheek . For indeed they say other churches are 'instruments" of salvation, yet there is not salvation outside the CC, for all other churches owe their grace to CC. But it sounds nice on their part towards us, that we are brethren at all. Yet, to spoil the party they also seem to say, for someone like yourself who has left the CC, you might be eternally in peril if you left them unignorantly or if one having understandingly heard the CC message and refuse to become Catholic. Current benevolence is still a slave to the past perhaps, at least technically or dogmatically speaking. Thankfully many Catholics are not technical/dogmatic and indeed see us as obvious brothers.

Yes, we do see you as brothers and sisters in Christ.

As a lifelong Catholic I was always under the impression that the Catholic Church doesn’t have this “we are the only ones saved” attitude, which you sometimes find in other denominations.

 

[Cinderbella]

…the Catholic Church doesn’t have this “we are the only ones saved” attitude, which you sometimes find in other denominations.

Yeah, there are some rather cultish protestant churches out there.