Does the Catholic Church have no authority?

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
the Catholic Church is the only church who can trace her history back to Christ Himself. If you don't believe me, then please trace the history of your particular denonimination/sect/cult in the same manner as only the Catholic Church can.

Just as easily, the Lutherans can do the same, tracing their lineage back to the Reformation, and from the point of reformation, following the Catholic lineage to day one.</font>[/QUOTE]Er, ah, Luther established the Lutheran Church in the 16th century; Christ established His Church in about AD 33!

Luther was not Christ, but he was a Catholic priest who bolted from the original and only church around when he bolted from her (not considering the Orthodox for the moment.)

And all the rest of Protestantism/Fundamentalism/Evangelism/Mormonism/Oneness Pentecostal, etc., etc., bolted from a church which bolted from a church which bolted from a church which bolted from the original church - The ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH!

I don't disagree with your arguement, but I think that attempting to the exclude Christian lineage works to divide, rather than unite, the body of Christ.

While I will never deny the salvation of our non-Catholic Christian breathren, there is only one way to truly unite, to have exactly the same doctrines and beliefs, is to return to the original church Christ founded!

It is that simple!

Saying that, I don't not stand on a soap box and declare that this is the only way to salvation, as I believe my non-Catholic brethren can and will achieve the victory of salvation simply because of the infinite mercy, justice and love of God. But there must be an advantage in becoming one with the very same Church founded which I kindly suggest all look into with an open heart and mind.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And coupled to the very church Christ establishes[

I don't believe that Jesus was attempting to found a denominational institution. Rather, he was establishing a new faith. We humans created organized religions to assist us in practicing that faith. </font>[/QUOTE]When Christ established a new faith, He also established one and only one church per Matthew 16:18-19, which, by itself cannot be a "denomination" since there was not a division then that brings about denominations, until and unless we have a schism, (the Orthodox being the first) or a full falling-away in a complete division as happened in Protestantism in the 16th century.

Why did "we humans" decide to establish competing denominations, with different beliefs and doctrines, that what we have is a babble of confusion, or is Christ the author of confusion?

And all this time, I thought Christ spoke of "One flock and one shephard..."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep

and watch over those
you have gathered.

Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.

You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

 

[gb93433]

Jesus said to the infallible pope a few verses later in Mattthew 16:23, "But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

 

[Eladar]

Ray,

Correct me if I am wrong but I think it was you who said, 'First of all, the Catholic Church is the only church who can trace her history back to Christ Himself.' {I believe this was taken from page 1 toward the bottom of the page}.

OK, I'll correct you. You're wrong. It was WPutnam who who brought that subject out of left field. I'm concerned about the "personal interpretation" aspect of the Catholic church.

Mike,

Therefore, a Catholic should act to form their own concience in accordance with the teachings of the Church. If a Catholic does not believe that the Church teaches the fullness of the faith and divine law this then that person really has no business claiming to be a Catholic.

Yes, a person who does not really believe what the church believes should not be a part of the church. Yet even when the New Testament letters were written, false teachers were making their way into the Christian community. It was the religious leaders who were standing up and telling people to expell the false prophets. If the Catholic Church allows false teachers to thrive in the church, it is the fault of church leadership.

Ron,

Advocating thought police?

No, I don't believe someone should be forced into believing anything. I just believe there should be some sort of accountability. Judging from your reponses in this thread, you have you'd make a pretty good Baptist. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. I'm guessing you'd support homosexual priest who is practicing the lifestyle.

From your earlier responses in the "are these guys Baptists?" threads I expected a different attitude out of you on this topic.

[ September 17, 2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Eladar ]

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Eladar:
Mike, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Therefore, a Catholic should act to form their own concience in accordance with the teachings of the Church. If a Catholic does not believe that the Church teaches the fullness of the faith and divine law this then that person really has no business claiming to be a Catholic.

Yes, a person who does not really believe what the church believes should not be a part of the church. Yet even when the New Testament letters were written, false teachers were making their way into the Christian community. It was the religious leaders who were standing up and telling people to expell the false prophets. If the Catholic Church allows false teachers to thrive in the church, it is the fault of church leadership.
</font>[/QUOTE]I agree much more than I disagree, but let me give you an example of the magnitude of the problem. "Catholic" colleges and universities in the U.S. have been teaching a great deal of heterodoxy in the past few decades. Since 1983 it has been required in Canon Law that everyone in Catholic colleges and universities be required to sign an oath (a mandatum) to only teach authentic Catholic doctrine. Well, the schools and the professors put up a tremendous fight to this perfectly reasonable requirement.

As far as I can determine, a large majority of professors in "Catholic" institutions refuse to sign such an oath. What would you do in such a situation. As I said, the poison is deep, and the damage is very serious.

ONE MANDATUM STORY
ANOTHER MANDATUM STORY

 

[Eladar]

Thanks for the links Mike. I'm glad to see that at least you and Ed are concerned about this issue.

It seems to me that if the Church can't get most of the Universities to sign the agreement, they could at least get a list of those who do. They could publish the list of those Universities that will teach Catholic doctrine and those that will not.

At least this would allow parents the opportunity to send their kids to an appropriate school. Or at the very least open their eyes about certain institutions.

One side question:

What would be so bad about officially rejecting those schools that do not teach Church doctrine? Does the church need so many schools? It seems to me that quality should be more important than quantity.

***By the way, in case anyone doesn't realise it, I used to go by Tuor***

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Jesus said to the infallible pope a few verses later in Mattthew 16:23, "But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

Of all the apostles, who get's chewed-out more them Peter? Only Peter, so far as I can see!

Peter is always sticking his neck out, often getting it cut off figuratively by Christ Himself. And even while it is recorded that Petet denied Him three times, Jesus nevertheless seems to have Peter in mind for something important. Matthew 16:18-19 is future tense, and I must note that the quote of "get thee behind me, Satan" comes soon after that! But it comes before Peter's denial, and the marvelous discourse, Jesus has with Peter and Peter alone in John 21:15-17.

Jesus knew who Peter was, his frailties and all, yet only Peter did He choose, finally, to Feed my sheep in the final comissioning of Peter before He ascended to the Father in heaven!

Peter is a sinner like all of us are sinners, and we see ample evidence of it in scripture, don't we? Yet despite this, Jesus gives him the helm of the "barque of the church" just as he said in Matthew 16:18-19.

Can you imagine the humility in Peter as Jesus does this to him in the John quote, knowing full well how be betrayed Him? Denying Him three times, he is forgiven three times, given the charge to feed His sheep. Peter is called upon by Christ, his "faith will strengthen his brethren" in Luke 22:32.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Jesus said to the infallible pope a few verses later in Mattthew 16:23, "But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

That's funny because he wasn't Pope then. I think I read earlier today in Catholic Encyclopedia that John 21 (feed my sheep) was the actual commissioning. Or perhaps at Pentecost since infallibility is a charism of the Holy Spirit. If he were actually satan then it would seem that you should probably rip those two books out of the Bible. Your arguement is as much of a problem for you as for us it seems.

Blessings

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Eladar:
Thanks for the links Mike. I'm glad to see that at least you and Ed are concerned about this issue.

It seems to me that if the Church can't get most of the Universities to sign the agreement, they could at least get a list of those who do. They could publish the list of those Universities that will teach Catholic doctrine and those that will not.

I did run across such a list somewhere on the net.

At least this would allow parents the opportunity to send their kids to an appropriate school. Or at the very least open their eyes about certain institutions.

Exactly. I would demand such confirmation before any school got a dollar of my money.

One side question:

What would be so bad about officially rejecting those schools that do not teach Church doctrine? Does the church need so many schools? It seems to me that quality should be more important than quantity.

***By the way, in case anyone doesn't realise it, I used to go by Tuor***

Ah, Tuor!

One school was "rejected" recently, meaning that the bishop announced that the school was no longer de-facto a Catholic institution. About 100 more such announcements and we'll have a lot more truth in advertising again.

I do know that the orthodox Catholic schools are flourishing. There are also plans afoot to build a new orthodox Catholic university of 5000 in Florida.

 

[True Blue Tuna]

Originally posted by DHK:
1. If you're not Catholic, then why are you worried about that in the first place?

I am not concerned about it per se. However, it is hypocritical for the Catholics to come and post on this board and tell us how united they all are having one catechism, and all Catholics are united in one faith under that one catehism, when in reality the opposite is true.

However, your original complaint was about a lack of 'quality control' in the Catholic Church. Now you've changed your tune. Now you're concerned that individual Catholics have come to this BBS and said things that you don't find believable. Even though those individual Catholics don't speak for the RC Church in any official capacity.

Your first complaint was about the RC leadership.

Your new complaint is that you don't like the way some Catholics have behaved on this bulletin board.

Those are two different complaints, and not really related.

That is what is being pointed out in this thread. Let us get to the truth of this matter.

I think the truth here is that many people enjoy the feeling of smug superiority that they get from putting other people down.

I was a Catholic, for 20 years. And quite frankly the Catholic leadership doesn't care, not about their own parishoners, not even about their own leadership.

I'm sorry you were in a bad parish. But your experience does not equate to the entire RC Church.

No, but you are a Lutheran. And you know enough that there have been splits in the Lutheran church so that there can be different kinds of Lutherans and still be called Lutherans. This should not be a difficult concept for you to understand.

Yep. But even with Lutherans (or Episcopalians) there are boundaries of doctrine that you can't cross. And even if someone does cross those boundaries, they don't get thrown overboard immediately. It just doesn't work that way.

Just as there has been splits in various Baptist movements, and yet we are all Baptists.

Well, not all the time. I know Baptists who refuse to congregate with each other, because they focus on the 2% that divides them. I know an independent Baptist congregation that refuses to fellowship with either American or Southern Baptists, because they had a doctrinal falling out almost 30 years ago.

The Catholic Church will not admit that the splits in their church makes for different kinds of Catholics. Therein lies the hypocrisy.
DHK

This isn't true. The RC Church and the pope have always maintained that there is broad area for disagreement. The acceptance of charismatic Catholics is an example of such a wide difference. Moreover, the RC church accepts converted, married priests from other denominations (i.e., a married Baptist who converst to the RC Church doesn't have to divorce his wife).

The RC Church admits and tolerates many different kinds of Catholics.

Sounds to me like you had a bad experience in the RC Church. I'm sorry. But don't let your bitterness grow and poison other people around you.

 

[Eladar]

Your first complaint was about the RC leadership.

No, that was my complaint.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Eladar:
Judging from your reponses in this thread, you have you'd make a pretty good Baptist. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. I'm guessing you'd support homosexual priest who is practicing the lifestyle.

Well, you have me stumped.

Exactly what part of my responses in this thread would ever lead you to such a conclusion?

Please be specific so that I may dispell your misunderstanding.

 

[Eladar]

It seemed to me that you were wondering about how some people could claim to be Baptist when they held beliefs that were so different from most of the Baptists on this board.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Eladar:
It seemed to me that you were wondering about how some people could claim to be Baptist when they held beliefs that were so different from most of the Baptists on this board.

Lets look at what I have said in this thread.

The Church teaches some things which I must believe in order to be in unity with the Church.

The Church teaches some things which allow me a little more latitude in what I may believe. But whatever I believe in these areas must not be in conflict with other teachings of the Church.

It is based on the teaching authority of the Church. It is not based on what I myself choose.

As a living being with free will, I may of course choose to disagree with the Church. That would place me in less than perfect unity with the Church however. And depending on the gravity of the particular matter, the degree of my disagreement, and how actively I advocate my disagreement, may place me so far out of unity with the Church as to place myself outside of the Church.

Notice that I say "place myself outside of the Church".

It is not necessary to be formally excommunicated by the Church. I may excommunicate myself through my own choices. Besides, it is not possible for the Church to know everything that a memeber of the Church does.

For example, by helping another person to obtain an abortion, I will have excommunicated myself. The Church may never know about it. I could continue to attend Mass at the grave peril of my soul. The pastor would not know of my grevious sin, but God would.

In such a case, claiming to be Catholic would be merely kidding oneself. If the facts of the circumstances were known, the Church would agree that I had excommunicated myself and that I could not claim to be a believing Catholic in good standing.

Do you see a difference?

Baptists can believe all sorts of odd things and still call themselves Baptist and most Baptists would say ok.

A Baptist who claims to be saved could commit any sort of sin and still claim the title Baptist with little opposition.

A Baptist can walk away from their local church never to enter a church again and still call themselves Baptist.

I hope that this clears up your misunderstanding.

 

[thessalonian]

DHK

"I can ascertain from his posts what he believes."

Can you?

Go to my new thread on the matter and we shall see. By the way I am not asking this question out of the blue. Ray is from Pennsylvania by his bio. Now there is a Ray Berrian from Hellerton PA who has a page on the Web at:

http://www.laker.net/rclark/GCHS1961/berrian.htm

They both like to fish, both former pastors, both have ties to Hellerton PA. To many ties.

Now this site has them as non-fundamentalist and liberal:

http://members.cox.net/fweil/ReligionClassification.html

Why would Ray have pastored there all those many years if he were not Liberal also. What does Liberal mean. If it means the same thing for the Reformed UCOC as it does for the UCOC (not to be confused with the COC or ICOC or YMCA ) then I think your interest may be increased a bit. Perhaps Ray isn't telling all. Perhaps he is. I think it is worth exploring.

Blessings

 

[Eladar]

The Church teaches some things which allow me a little more latitude in what I may believe. But whatever I believe in these areas must not be in conflict with other teachings of the Church.

Does the Church teach that Buddha and Jesus are the same?

It is not necessary to be formally excommunicated by the Church. I may excommunicate myself through my own choices. Besides, it is not possible for the Church to know everything that a memeber of the Church does.

Define excommunicate.

 

[thessalonian]

"Does the Church teach that Buddha and Jesus are the same? "

NO.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Eladar:
Does the Church teach that Buddha and Jesus are the same?

Of course not.

You know this quite well, but apparently wish to be provacative.

Now no doubt you will offer some second hand knowledge of some person somewhere who believes that they are the same. And of course you will say that this person is a Catholic.

If such a person were to exist, he would be in serious error.

How that error would be handled by the Church would depend on the specifics of the case.

 

[Eladar]

Now no doubt you will offer some second hand knowledge of some person somewhere who believes that they are the same.

This was from a discussion on another board. The person in question claims to be a Catholic. I have no reason to doubt it. If you'd like I can provide a link so that you can read for yourself what he wrote.

If such a person were to exist, he would be in serious error.

What would the Church do about it? Evidently he has had similar discussion with a priest.

Which brings me back to an earlier question:

What is the definition of excommunication?

 

[CatholicConvert]

Eladar --

Please tape this to your forehead and memorize it:

IDIOT CATHOLICS DO NOT DEFINE THE CATHOLIC FAITH!!

Thanks

Brother Ed

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Eladar:
This was from a discussion on another board. The person in question claims to be a Catholic. I have no reason to doubt it. If you'd like I can provide a link so that you can read for yourself what he wrote.

As I said, such a person would be in serious error.

What would the Church do about it?

It would depend upon the specifics of the case.

Without such specifics it would be merely speculation on my part.

Evidently he has had similar discussion with a priest.

Your use of the word "evidently" sounds like speculation on your part.

What is the definition of excommunication?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1463. "Certain particularly grave sins incur EXCOMMUNICATION, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts..."