Pope Francis said nothing new.
This has been in the Catechism for I don't know how long. Here's the deal - a snippet of a quote from his 2,500-word letter has been grabbed and taken out of context. Why? Why would reporters do this? Maybe because they are looking for the Catholic Church to change.
The media. The media who hates Christianity and everything that it stands for. The media who hates anyone who is pro-life or who stands for traditional marriage. This is who you trust for your Catholic theology? The media grabs on to what they think drives their agenda, and their agenda isn't the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church stands for truth and won't change according to the whims of the world. And the media and the world HATES this. So they hold on to every snippet of a quote that may point to the fall of the Catholic Church as we know it. Because this would mean the rise of their agendas.
This stuff drives me bonkers. Then again, maybe I'm underestimating Pope Francis and his brilliant plan to use the media.
Leila Miller at the Little Catholic Bubble has a great series called "Little Teachings", and she addresses the question, "Can non-Catholics be saved?" As she emphatically states,
There is no salvation except through Christ Jesus, and it is simply impossible for anyone to get to Heaven without Him.And this is not a contradiction to what Pope Francis wrote in his recent letter.
Let's think of this in another way. I'll use an example. Amy reads in the Bible that love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). Amy is a brand new Christian, and since she hasn't been in church long or read the Bible very much yet she interprets this verse to mean it's fine to sin all she wants. Jesus' love will cover it. But Amy is wrong. She hasn't read that verse with the context of the entire Bible, so she in mis-interpreting it.
The same is true of what many non-Catholics are doing with Pope Francis' recent statements. The statements are snatched out and interpreted without an understanding of Catholic theology. The pope is not saying that you can get to heaven without Jesus. I know that's what it sounds like, but that's not what he's saying at all.
But you shouldn't just take my word on the matter. Search it for yourself. Catholicism is the oldest Christian faith, the biggest Christian faith, and the only Christian church who claims to have been started by Jesus himself. Isn't it worth further investigation?
And for God's sake, don't get your Catholic teaching from the unbelieving world or the general media.
Leila's post that talks about the salvation of non-Catholics and non-believers isn't a full teaching on the matter, but it is a really, really, really good way for a quick start to understanding this topic (as are her other little teachings). Please read Leila's teaching (from a year and a half ago), and read what the Pope really said in his letter to fully understand what was said. And here's a good piece from the National Catholic Register that also goes into what Pope Francis wrote. That is - if you really want to understand what Pope Francis was saying in his letter. Or you could just go on being ill-informed and using snippets of quotes from the Pope to use against him and the Catholic Church. Either way, it's your choice.
Jesus gave us the Catholic Church to help guide us while we're here on Earth. He built his Church and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Jesus always keeps his word. He's pretty awesome that way.
kristy
25 comments:
"Catholicism is the oldest Christian faith, the biggest Christian faith, and the only Christian church who claims to have been started by Jesus himself. Isn't it worth further investigation?"
Those are some pretty bold and arrogant statements, can you back that up? With Scripture? Isn't the Christian church as a whole the church started by Jesus? Or does the Catholic church have some sort of patent on that?
Dustin, the Catholic Church has apostolic succession. That means every bishop is a successor to one of the Apostles (going back in an unbroken line) and the Pope is Peter's successor. If a Christian church is not apostolic, then it cannot be the one Christ founded. A thorough (not edited) reading of the Early Fathers will show a uniform understanding of the nature of the hierarchical Church. Yes, it's a bold claim, but one that has been made for 2,000 years.
Biblically, we have to remember that the Church gave us the New Testament. The Church wrote it, promulgated it, preserved it, transcribed it, and canonized it (over 300 years after the Church was born and thriving, by a Pope and the body of bishops); the Church had the authority to do that, and also has the authority to interpret Scripture. So, the Bible is Church-based, not the other way around.
(And the Church has not changed her interpretation of Scripture at all. It's been the same since the beginning, which is also born out by reading the Church Fathers.)
Remember, Christianity is a revealed religion (we don't get to decide what it is or what it means), and God has always delegated authority from the top down:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-i-never-learned-part-vii-authority.html
http://catholicexchange.com/sorry-youre-not-allowed-to-do-that/
catholic.com is also a great resource for historical and biblical answers.
Many blessings to you, Dustin. And Kristy, great post!
Dustin, I understand it may seem arrogant to make those claims. But history backs it up. It is interesting I never used to look at Christian history much, and I certainly never looked into any Christian history before 1517. But once I did, I found the evidence was incredible...not what i expected. Look up Ireneus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Eusubius. (I'm sure I got the spelling wrong on at least one of those.) These men were apostles of the Apostles of the Bible. I'm not saying their writings are equivalent to the Bible, only that their writings are historical evidence as to what the early church lookedare like.
Leila, can you define apostolic? I know many people use different definitions. In my studying of Acts, I don't see any hierarchical church structure. Scripture does clearly talk about the priesthood of ALL believers. The only hint of hierarchy would be the establishment of elders (aka overseers/bishops) and it looks very different than the Catholic Church today. There is not even a hint of apostolic teaching for one-man rule of an individual congregation, let alone an entire city or region. So I disagree that your claim has been made for 2,000 years since it is not seen in Acts. The Church didn't give us the NT, God did. This verse clearly shows that the Bible is not church-breathed. "All Scripture is God-breaathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Yes, the Catholic Church did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, but that doesn't mean the Bible came from the CC. I don't know how you can go against Scripture and say it's church based.
Kristy, I look at church history and see the church changing drastically over time. Constantine probably had the biggest influence in it's change, but it was gradually changing before him. What's interesting if you look at it is that the church has changed over time from the New Testament structure back to many ways of the Old Testament structure. Also, there are some discrepancies between Irenaeus and Polycarp's writings. Irenaeus claimed that Polycarp was an apostolic successor of the Apostle John when Polycarp himself never even quoted any of John's writings. He may very well have been a student of another John who was a teacher in Asia, who he does quote. Not to mention Irenaeus' writings had an agenda that promoted a more hierarchical approach (which was driven by growing heresies in the 2nd century) and he made Polycarp out to be someone (a bishop) who Polycarp himself never claimed to be.
Yes, the Catholic Church did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, but that doesn't mean the Bible came from the CC. I don't know how you can go against Scripture and say it's church based.
What was the role of the Catholic Church, as you see it, regarding Scripture?
And actually, the Bible says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. That is pretty powerful.
As for apostolic, I mean the office of the Apostles did have successors. I have asked my non-Catholic brethren to show me evidence in Acts or anywhere that has folks starting up churches independent of the Apostles' authority? I see that model nowhere. And it's not the Church of history.
Apostolic succession was so important that it was put in the Creed at Nicea. And we must understand those words the way the Fathers meant them, not reinvent them in our own way.
Blessings!
PS: Catholics believe in the priesthood of all believers, too. That is separate and apart from the ministerial priesthood.
Scripture never uses the word "catholic", so I'm not sure what you're asking. Anyway, the role of the church is to build one another up for the progression of the Gospel to the ends of the earth.
Being the pillar and foundation of truth means that the church is responsible for the truth (preserving, sharing, rebuking, etc.), aka the Word of God. That truth came from God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not the church. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, did He come from the church?
Where do you see succession of Apostles in Scripture?
I have asked my non-Catholic brethren to show me evidence in Acts or anywhere that has folks starting up churches independent of the Apostles' authority?
Maybe because the Apostles were still alive at that time in Scripture.
Besides, who started the Roman church? When Paul wrote the letter to that church he hadn't gone there yet. We actually don't know who started it.
Speaking of church model. Where in Scripture do you see the archbishop, priests , pope, the heavily adorned church buildings (I'm not just talking about Catholic churches here), the Catholic rituals, etc? Like I said before, it resembles more of the Old Testament temple than it does the New Testament church. Also, did you know that Muslims think we believe Mary is a part of the Trinity? It makes me wonder where they get this from.
PS: Catholics believe in the priesthood of all believers, too. That is separate and apart from the ministerial priesthood.
That's interesting you say that, can you show me where that distinction is in Scripture?
Dustin,
I'm not sure what discrepancies you are talking about, but if you look at Tertullian's "Prescriptions against Heresies", in Chapter 32 he mentions that Polycarp was a bishop. He also refers to the fact that Polycarp's name was recorded in the register as having been a bishop. See, we've been keeping records since day 1. That's how we can trace our faith back to Jesus.
To answer your question about apostolic succession, in Acts 1:21-26 the first thing the apostles did after Jesus' ascension in heaven was to quickly replace the vacancy left by Judas. After choosing Matthias, they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority. Also, in 1 Timothy 1:3 and 4:14 Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop was given to him by the laying on of hands. He also tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:22 not to be hasty is handing this authority to others. Furthermore, in the book of Titus, Paul describes the apostolic authority given to Titus and urges him to act decisively in his leadership role.
The word "catholic" (lower case c) means universal, and was used to describe the christian church in unity with the succession of apostles, and to differentiate the true Christianity from the various heresies that were spreading during that time. The fact that the term "catholic" isn't in the Bible doesn't matter; neither is the word "Trinity", but that doesn't mean the Trinity doesn't exist.
Dustin, I meant to address your accusation that the church looks like the Old Testament. Of course, it does! The new testament is a fulfillment of the old testament, not a refutal. The old testament reveals the new testament. They are not a contradiction to each other. And the new testament book of Revelation is about the Mass! It's so amazing my heart skips when I ponder it. I mean, it's amazing. If you look at the churches that split directly from the Catholic Church, they look very Catholic still (Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican). Once you have a split from a split from a split from a split...of a church, it looks very different. Why? Because the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican churches moved backwards in a similar fashion? No! The other churches that are a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy....have moved far away from what Jesus intended His church to be.
With one important difference from the old to the new, of course - we now have a high priest who made the ultimate and eternal sacrifice for us :)
Polycarp never referred to himself as a bishop. Besides, I'm not holding any of those writings as Scripture. Show me a hierarchical structure in scripture.
I'm not sure you can base an entire doctrine on Acts 1:21-26. They were replacing Judas with another disciple who had witnessed the resurrection. I don't see where 1 Timothy 1:3 reminds Timothy that the office of "bishop" was given to him by the laying of hands. 4:4 doesn't mention anything about apostolic succession, only gifts of the Spirit. 1 Timothy 5:22 is concerning elders, not apostles. Also, Timothy was never referred to as an elder (bishop). Paul did refer to him as an apostle in 1 Thessalonians 2:6. Timothy was an apostle as he was sent forth with orders. If you look at the Greek, that's what apostle means. Timothy and Titus were sent forth to instruct the church. The English term "missionary" actually comes from the Greek word for apostle. Using the term missionary, most churches are started by apostles, but they typically don't stay as the head of a church. They keep moving and planting more churches, making more disciples, fulfilling the great commission. Again, you don't see a hierarchical structure in Scripture, only a simple structure of church.
I understand that the word catholic means universal and is used to describe unity of the church. I find it ironic because the catholic church excludes churches that aren't catholic, making it less universal.
My point was the the church shouldn't look like the Old Testament. I agree that the NT was a fulfillment of the old, but God no longer dwells in the temple, so we no longer have a need for temple worship. Our bodies are now the temple. God dwells within us. Jesus said where two or three are gathered together in His name, He is present (Matthew 18:20). That can be anywhere, it doesn't have to be a nice building and they don't have to perform rituals. It could be in an underground movement in China where they can't worship openly.
The other churches that are a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy....have moved far away from what Jesus intended His church to be.
What did Jesus intend His church to be? Because I don't see in Scripture where He intended us to go to church once or twice a week, stare at the back of someone's head for an hour, maybe greet them, listen to a lesson, perform some rituals, then leave church and go back to living like the world. That's what the current church structure fosters and I'm pretty sure that isn't what Jesus intended.
He intended us to edify on another and equip one another for the sake of spreading the Gospel to the ends of the earth.
I realize I had a lot to comment on in my last post, but there were a couple of things I wanted to see your thoughts on. Where did the church of Rome come from and can you show me a distinction in Scripture between the priesthood of all believers and "ministerial priesthood"?
Dustin,
"What did Jesus intend His church to be?"
He meant for it to be ONE. He wanted his apostles to be ONE and he appointed Peter as the first visible leader of the Church. (John 17 and Matthew 16:17-20)
Catholics have Mass every day. Whether or not someone "gets" anything when they come to church is not up to me. That's between them and God. The Mass is focused on God, and whether or not someone decides to participate or just show up - that's up to them. But I can tell you, I come broken and leave touched by His grace and mercy. There is nothing on earth like the Eucharist.
Did you read Chapter 32 of "The Prescription Against Heretics" by Tertullian? He references Polycarp being Bishop of Rome. And he also references Peter having been in Rome. Whether or not any writings survived from Polycarp calling himself the bishop of Rome matters not. More than one early church writer says it was so. It's historical evidence and not among dispute among professional historians. I'm not even sure why we're discussing it. The Bible talks about bishops, and writing from Ignatius of Antioch (died in 108) still exist that evidence the term being used in the way the Catholic Church recognizes it today.
I even had a conversation with an Assemblies of God ordained minister who had a degree in church history. She told me and the other person with me that the Catholic Church was the first church. This is not a disputed fact. Most professional historians agree this is a fact.
As for the ministerial priesthood, it is not the same priesthood as the priests in the Old Testament. Our priests are really the elders described in the Bible. The English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, or "elder." It does not originate from hiereus. The German word priester also has its origin from the Greek word for "elder." So there is etymological reason to say that the elder in the Christian Church was considered to be a priest.
Also, we can see in the Bible that Jesus purposefully chose and sends the apostles to act as mediators between God and men. This is the very definition of a priest. After his resurrection, Jesus appears in teh upper room and says to the apostles, As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And then he breathed on them and said, "Received the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." The power to forgive and retain sins is a priestly ministry (Lev. 19:21-22). In 2 Corinthians 2:10, Paul says, "For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven for your sake in the presence of Christ" And in 2 Cor. 5:20 "We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
There are many more verses to illustrate apostolic succession other than Acts 1:21-26. I am trying to be as short as I can in the comments here, but I can give more verses if you'd like. It's just that there are so many topics that the comments with answers can get rather lengthy. I am glad to help, though, if you'd like more info. I can also point you to catholic.com (aka Catholic Answers). There is a wealth of FAQs there.
Being one is a description of the church and there definitely needs to be unity, but I wouldn't say the purpose of the church is to just be one. A group of atheists can have unity, but that wouldn't make them the church. There is more to it than just unity. And I don't doubt that the church was built upon the foundation that Peter laid in Acts 2.
I encourage you to look up all of the verses that say "one another" in Scripture. Whether someone "gets" anything when they come isn't up to you, but it is up to you to bring something to give them (Col. 3:16, 1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor. 14:26). Scripture is pretty clear on this.
I haven't read chapter 32, but I do know that the writings of these men are not infallible and I won't take them as Scripture. The Bible does talk about bishops, but in the sense of eldership, not the way they are used by the Catholic church today. I don't think most Christian churches correctly handle eldership either.
The Catholic Church came from the first churches, as did many other churches, but you can't say that the Catholic Church WAS the first church. Most Catholic historians will agree with you, but not most professional historians as a whole.
The only time in the new testament that "priest" is used to describe a minister is in Romans 15:16 and it means someone who ministers the Gospel. It is not in reference to an elder. hierourgeō is the word used for priest in this reference, look it up in a Greek Bible. Presbyteros is the word used for elder or bishop and here's the meaning of the term used in Scripture: among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably.
Apostles are apostles, not priests.
Eph. 4:11-12 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ"
As you can see, there is a distinction between apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.
Thanks for the references, but I'll stick with the Bible for my source of information. It's nice to see the thoughts of others, but if Truth can't be derived from the Bible alone, then God's Word isn't enough and the Holy Spirit has no purpose. God's word is the authority, not Tertullian and not catholic.com
I still haven't gotten an answer regarding the church of Rome. Was it started by an Apostle?
I didn't say the purpose of the church was to be one. I said that Jesus intended his church to be one in unity, just as he and the Father are one. He prayed this in John 17 so "that the world may believe that you have sent me." He prayed this so that people's hearts would know his love and be changed. It's more than just really important to be in unity. It's the will of Jesus! And Christians have really screwed things up in this area of God's will.
If you read the historical writing of the early Christians, there was a strong effort to keep the church ONE.
The writing of the early Christians are not fabricated. They're not just Catholic history. They are history. Take a look at what the early Christian writers were saying and what the church looked like. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html
Please don't get the wrong impression from me - I do not mean that these writing are equal to the inerrant Word of God. I only mean them to be historical information about the early church. I would never equate them to the Bible.
Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and he was appointed the head of the church by Jesus. I suppose that's how it got there. (I hope you weren't trying to get me to go to the idea that the CC was started by Constantine in the 4th century. I was anti-Catholic before I became Catholic, so I've already drank that kool-aid, and once I looked at the historical evidence, it didn't have a leg to stand on. Forgive me if that's not where you were going with your persistent question about Rome, but it just makes me yawn when people pull up factual "history" when they haven't even looked at actual historical information. I have five kids and just don't have time to refute a bunch of fiction.)
I took your comment to mean the sole point of the church was to be one, since that's all that you mentioned. Sorry if I took it wrong. Whatever wording you want to use, I agree that unity is a big deal. Which is why Paul wrote about it often. There should still be a strong effort to keep the church one, yet the Catholic church tends to be very exclusive (I can't take communion unless I'm a member of the Catholic church). That doesn't seem like unity to me.
I didn't say they were fabricated, I just said they weren't infallible. You can take a look at early writings all you want, but I don't have to look any further than Acts to see what the early church was like.
Show me evidence in Scripture that shows Peter as bishop of Rome? There is no indication that he even went there before Paul wrote Romans. If you read Romans you'll see that Paul thorough in greeting the saints in Rome (Romans 16), yet fails to leave out Peter. You'd think if Peter was the bishop of Rome, he'd be one of the first people Paul would have greeted in his letter. If you want to go by early church writings, Iraeneus makes no mentions of Peter being the first bishop of Rome. Linus is the one he lists first, and from his writings it seems like Paul appointed Linus. Which would make sense because Peter's ministry was to the Jews and Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles (plus, Paul obviously had an influence in Rome). Hyppolytus alsomentions Linus as the first bishop of Rome.
I wasn't going with that idea about Constantine at all, but he did play a big role in where the CC is today and started some of the traditions that I had issues with in some of my previous posts. I'm not completely anti-Catholic, it just gets under my skin with the heretical view that they are part of the church and I am not. Like I said before about your historical evidence, it is not infallible. Man's tradition is just that, man's tradition. Also, there was not a unanimous consent among all of the early church writings. Yawn all you want, but it's the truth. I have backed all I have said up with Scripture (which you haven't), if you think that is fiction I don't have much else to say.
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8
Dustin,
"I don't have to look any further than Acts to see what the early church was like."
Then why do we have 30,000 Christian denominations in the world?
It's interesting when a person doesn't want to look at historical evidence for what the early church looked like, but they are fine using historical evidence to try to debunk the Catholic Church.
Please understand that we aren't trying to exclude anyone from communion. We want you. We want everyone. But we want the unity in spirit before the unity of body takes place. It sort of like a couple who has premarital relations - that doesn't make them married. Taking the Eucharist doesn't make people unified.
How do you think that 30,000 denominations (and counting) could one day become unified again? How exactly do we works towards that?
Then why do we have 30,000 Christian denominations in the world?
Because we live in a fallen, sinful world. No church is perfect. You can obviously see that in Paul's letters to the various churches. They all had struggles too.
I only used the historical evidence because that's what you kept going back to. I've already given plenty of SCRIPTURAL evidence, but you usually ignored it. I just wanted to show your own historical evidence disproves a lot of what you were trying to say.
What does unity in spirit mean to the Catholic Church? Does it mean doing rituals that are traditions of men?
How do you think that 30,000 denominations (and counting) could one day become unified again? How exactly do we works towards that?
By going back to the basics of Scripture, making the Bible the absolute truth and ultimate authority. By making the Gospel the center message. By not having emphasis of man's teaching above the Bible. When we begin to humble ourselves and actually go by Jesus' greatest commandments about loving God with our everything and loving your neighbor as yourself. By forsaking our self-righteousness, and forsaking our comfort for the progression of the Gospel to the ends of the earth. I'm on a ministry team right now with several different theological and denominational backgrounds and we have unity. Our unity is centered on the Gospel message and our passion to tell others about Christ.
Dustin,
When you said…
The Catholic Church came from the first churches, as did many other churches, but you can't say that the Catholic Church WAS the first church. Most Catholic historians will agree with you, but not most professional historians as a whole.
…you seem to say that there was not ONE church in the Bible, that there were multiples churches.
When I asked you why we had 30,000 Christian denominations (which in itself refutes unity), you said…
Because we live in a fallen, sinful world.
But if there were multiple churches in the Bible – as you stated, then it would be the correct model of churches to have multiple churches, no? Yet you know this is the case because we live in a fallen world, which I totally agree with your last statement you made. I believe we have multiple churches because we live in a fallen world. It’s not God’s plan for us, though. His plan is for unity, and the Catholic Church welcomes all to join us in this unity. I agree that no church is perfect, but to be blatantly out of His will of unity is a travesty, not just a mere inconvenient circumstance.
I commend you for being a part of an ecumenical group. If only more people were open to that. Your plan for once more becoming unified one day is:
By going back to the basics of Scripture, making the Bible the absolute truth and ultimate authority. By making the Gospel the center message. By not having emphasis of man's teaching above the Bible.
Wasn’t that Martin Luther’s plan? Then how exactly did one denomination become 30,000 denominations? I believe that the fruit of Luther’s actions is 30,000 divisions. You can judge a movement by its fruit. 30,000 divisions. Not. God’s. plan. Not only is it not God’s plan, but I’d venture to say that “man’s teaching” got in there somewhere. I mean, there are more than 30,000 different ways to interpret scripture, but there are not 30,000 different truths. There is one God and there is one Bible and there is one Truth and there should be one Christian church. Don’t you think that God knew that the pride of man would lead us to division? That’s specifically why he gave us the Apostles – now the Magisterium - to lead us and help us while we are here on Earth. Having a central authority is the only way man - through our fallen natures - can ever remain in unity.
I do not disagree that the Bible is central to faith. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. No one should teach anything that contradicts the Bible. I know that you imply that man is in charge of the Catholic Church, that the rituals are of man and not of God (I know by your tone because I used to think the same thing – for 17 years of my adult life). But it’s simply not true. Christ is the center of everything we do. The Mass and everything in the Mass is from scripture. See for yourself: http://www.wctc.net/~mudndirt/Scripture%20in%20mass.htm. This link has the entire Mass broken out with Bible references next to each. I dare you to find one non-Catholic church with as much Bible in one of its services.
I gave you Bible references before, but you explained them away and dismissed them and then said that I hadn’t given you any Biblical references. As for more scriptural reference to the Catholic Church (referenced from scripturecatholic.com):
Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.
Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, "I will build my 'Church' (not churches)." There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because "binding and loosing" are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.
John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.
John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus' oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.
John 17:9-26 - Jesus' prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.
John 17:21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.
Rom. 15:5 - Paul says that we as Christians must live in harmony with one another. But this can only happen if there is one Church with one body of faith. This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church.
Rom. 16:17 - Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ.
1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals?
Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - again, the Church does not mean "invisible" unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.
Eph. 4:11-14 - God gives members of the Church various gifts in order to attain to the unity of the faith. This unity is only found in the Catholic Church.
Eph. 4:3-5 - we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal unity, not 30,000 different denominations.
Eph. 5:25 - the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many.
Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15 - we, as Christians, are one visible body in Christ, not many bodies, many denominations.
Phil. 1:27 - Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel.
Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different "Protest"ant denominations?
Col. 1:18 - Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects.
1 Tim. 6:4 - Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ.
2 Tim. 2:14 - do not dispute about words which only ruin the hearers. Two-thousand years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ's Church.
2 Tim. 4:3 - this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ's teachings which He gives us through His Church.
Rev. 7:9 - the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is "catholic," which means universal.
1 Peter 3:8 - Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.
Gen. 12:2-3 - since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church.
Dan. 7:14 - Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church.
1 Cor. 14:33 - God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ's Church.
What would you say is your pillar and foundation of truth?
you seem to say that there was not ONE church in the Bible, that there were multiples churches.
You’re playing with words. When I say many other churches I mean church bodies (Church of Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) They are all still one church. Like my church and the church down the street are both still the church.
and the Catholic Church welcomes all to join us in this unity.
Is that statement not divisive in itself? You’re not the church unless you come join our Catholic church. It’s like you guys have a patent on church. How is my church not a part of the church?
That was Luther’s plan, though I don’t agree with all of his theology. Was it Luther’s fault that other denominations exist? I don’t think so. Again, we live in a fallen world. The early churches struggled with unity as well. Is there not a dark history among the Catholic church as well? Or did that get erased?
That’s specifically why he gave us the Apostles – now the Magisterium - to lead us and help us while we are here on Earth. Having a central authority is the only way man - through our fallen natures - can ever remain in unity.
When did apostleship change to “magisterium”? The Apostles were given to build the church. The central authority is God’s Word, not man. Anything else is just adding to God’s Word, which He was pretty clear that we shouldn’t do that.
I gave you Bible references before, but you explained them away and dismissed them and then said that I hadn’t given you any Biblical references.
You gave very few and when I would explain the context of the ones you took out of context, you ignored it. Your arguments from a historical standpoint seemed to outweigh anything from Scripture.
Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.
You’re taking that way out of context. I understand the point you’re trying to make and I would agree (also throwing the Catholic church in that mix), but I wouldn’t use that story to back up your point.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, "I will build my 'Church' (not churches)." There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.
Again, many church bodies, one church. Kind of like the Catholic church has many congregations, but you would consider them to be the Catholic church.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because "binding and loosing" are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.
The Apostles did have that authority as they were building the church, but I don’t see any succession of that authority. I’m not sure why you keep mentioning visible and invisible? I never said the church was invisible.
John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.
Again, context. He is referring to Himself as the shepherd and the church as a whole as the flock. Plus He was talking to Jews, who followed a high priest. Jesus is now the high priest (see Hebrews).
John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus' oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.
John 17:9-26 - Jesus' prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history
So you’re saying the Catholic church is perfect and there has NEVER been any division? You’re ignoring a lot of history.
John 17:21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.
John 13:34-35 – “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
I sure don’t feel loved by the Catholic church, I feel excluded. So I guess I’m not seeing what you call universally united. Oh yeah, I have to join the Catholic church to be united… Are our brothers and sisters who are suffering persecution and being driven underground (such as the underground church movement in China) part of the church? Or are they not because they don’t have a fancy building and don’t follow rituals of men? They’re following the great commission by making disciples, yet by your definition they aren’t part of the church. They’re dying for the sake of Christ, yet they aren’t a part of the church. Yet a bunch of people who go to church once or twice a week, go through the motions and do some rituals, then act like the rest of the world the other days, they are the only church and have perfect unity. I’m not saying you are in this boat, but many are and you are saying that many nominal Catholics have perfect unity over people who are willing to die in order to meet together as a church. That makes no sense at all.
This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church.
The Holy Spirit dwells within us, not a church building. I don’t know if that’s what you are saying, but I just wanted to clarify. I know many people equate church buildings with God’s presence.
1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals?
Well for one, if you look at the context of this Paul was addressing unity issues within the church of Corinth. You would say this is the Catholic church, which is in perfect unity, so how could they have had unity issues? Look at the rest of the scripture surrounding this verse. People were divided and some were saying they follow Paul, some Appollos, some of Cepheas and some of Christ. What does Paul do, he points them back to the Jesus and the cross. Why? Because the Gospel is the center of our unity, not some pope.
Eph. 4:3-5 - we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal unity, not 30,000 different denominations.
Let me ask you this, if the network of house churches I’m a part of is of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism, does that make us the church? Or are we excluded because we aren’t Catholic?
Phil. 1:27 - Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel.
And if I’m doing that along with my fellow brothers and sisters I’m not a part of the church because I’m not Catholic?
Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different "Protestant” denominations?
Are all Catholics of the same mind? Because I know some who differ in various beliefs. Some who couldn’t explain the Gospel if I asked them. But yet they’re of the same mind?
Col. 1:18 - Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects.
Yet there are various Catholic sects throughout the world. I guess it doesn’t matter because they all adhere to the pope? I could say the same about many denominations adhering to Christ.
1 Tim. 6:4 - Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ.
Again, that universal authority is God’s Word, not man. Where does it say in Scripture that there must be a man as the universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ?
2 Tim. 2:14 - do not dispute about words which only ruin the hearers. Two-thousand years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ's Church.
Yet the doctrine of the Catholic church today doesn’t look anything like what it did 2,000 years ago.
2 Tim. 4:3 - this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ's teachings which He gives us through His Church.
I agree, that’s why I go back to the Bible and don’t assume what man says is true (Acts 17:11)
Rev. 7:9 - the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is "catholic," which means universal.
You act like the Catholic church has a patent on this.
1 Peter 3:8 - Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.
Agreed, but it isn’t the pope.
Gen. 12:2-3 - since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church
Dan. 7:14 - Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church.
All I can say to those comments is wow. So I guess the great commission can only be done by the Catholic church and I’m wasting my time. I don’t believe that. I will absolutely give my life to sharing the Gospel with those who haven’t heard. I am flat out appalled that you think this only happens through the Catholic church.
What would you say is your pillar and foundation of truth?
The church, under Scriptural authority is. The church united around the Gospel. My church here is a part of the same body as my church back home, which is part of the same body as the underground Churches in China and other churches across the globe. We are all one body, united in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.
One more thing. I'm not trying to argue about the issues that the denominations create. I agree that God's intentions was to create a universal church without denominational distinctions. However, I don't claim to be Catholic, protestant, baptist, non-denominational, etc. I don't formulate doctrine based on a denomination or sect of Christianity. I am simply a follower of Jesus and want to obey His Words, which are the very breath of the one true God. The universal church described in the New Testament that you call "catholic" is not reflected in the Catholic church today with it's traditions, beliefs and rituals. I agree that God intended on a universal church, but Scripturally speaking that doesn't mean the Catholic church today is THE church. I have to be careful when I use the word "Christian", because it doesn't carry as much weight as it did in the New Testament times. Many people call themselves Christians, but don't follow Jesus, even though the word Christian means follower of Christ. Most importantly, it doesn't matter who we are and which denomination is right, what matters is the importance of the Gospel message to the world.
If you take away the building, the clergy, the traditions and rituals, can the church still exist?
Post a Comment