Callers to my door.

Slav

Of course they are huge, otherwise the whole Church would be united or at very least it would have a solid ground for it.

My point is that while the answers to the questions are different the approaches are not fundamentally different.

Also I'm not saying that those two are the only differences between the three major branches. There is a lot more that divides them but it is not relevant to the specific point you made about the mentality of one true churchers.

Donatello

The thing is that in RCC the vast majority of people with teaching power has already passed away. There is current Pope but the ordinary laymen normally don't communicate at that level.

Yes, but they've left behind a massive body of authoritative teaching, the Sacred Tradition. The Magisterium (Pope and bishops in union with him) have the job of teaching with Christ's authority, matters of faith and morals. It's one of the strengths of the Catholic Church, in that our authoritative Magisterium can address the moral issues of the day, such as stem cell research, whereas the Orthodox are, in a real sense, frozen in time, unable to deal with modern moral issues, whilst also falling into moral error, just as the Protestants did at the Lambeth Conference in the early 20th century.

hinault

Slav wrote: »

Abuse of power is a different issue and I don't think it has a direct connection with a chosen source of teaching authority or ecclesiastical model. The thing is that in RCC the vast majority of people with teaching power has already passed away. There is current Pope but the ordinary laymen normally don't communicate at that level. In Orthodoxy I'm not aware of any power or teaching authority being delegated to men, be they worthy or unworthy, but still you would call Orthodox the "one true churchers". However, if I understand Jimi's post correctly he was not talking about the governing power but about the teaching authorities of RCC an JW and a special comfort zone they provide for the followers. My point is that we all have our own comfort zones of teaching authorities which are, while being different, are essentially built on the same principals as we are all to a certain extent "one true churchers". We only give different answers to 2 questions: 1) What is Church and 2) What is the ultimate authority in the matters of faith.

If I read you correctly, I strongly disagree with this premise entirely.

I don't "essentially" agree with Baptists. My five minute conversation with them (see OP) clearly illustrates the only one aspect of difference that I would have with Baptists.
And you could probably apply this in various degrees to each of the reformed/Protestant churches.

So to suggest that we all "agree on the essentials" is highly inaccurate in my opinion.

Slav

hinault wrote: »

So to suggest that we all "agree on the essentials" is highly inaccurate in my opinion.

You can disagree with Baptism on any and every theological point including all the "essentials". This does not make your approaches to choosing teaching authorities and justifying them essentially different. This was in response to Jimi's post #74.

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

Of course they are huge, otherwise the whole Church would be united or at very least it would have a solid ground for it.

My point is that while the answers to the questions are different the approaches are not fundamentally different.

The approach is not the issue, the attitude it instills is the issue.

Also I'm not saying that those two are the only differences between the three major branches. There is a lot more that divides them but it is not relevant to the specific point you made about the mentality of one true churchers.

One true Church mentality seeks division. It looks for the differences, as anything outside of it is a poor imitation. Not having this mentality is conducive to fellowship. It discourages elitism, and religious pride. It means I can call you brother without a 'but'. The OTC mentality encourages thoughts of, 'I'm right', and also encourages the laity not to think, but to just obey. This creates a security in some.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

The approach is not the issue, the attitude it instills is the issue.

Since the approach is the same it instils more or less the same attitude, that's my point. With rare exceptions all Christians believe in One True Church and I don't see their attitude towards those outside of it (according to their definition of the Church) is not much different.

One true Church mentality seeks division. It looks for the differences, as anything outside of it is a poor imitation. Not having this mentality is conducive to fellowship. It discourages elitism, and religious pride. It means I can call you brother without a 'but'. The OTC mentality encourages thoughts of, 'I'm right', and also encourages the laity not to think, but to just obey. This creates a security in some.

While I respectfully disagree with your assessments (imho in itself it neither encourages nor discourages pride and elitism and certainly does not encourage the blind obedience and lack of critical thinking) you logic can equally be applied to all Christians. Are you open to fellowship with JW or Mormons? Don't you know many Christians who look down on them because they are a poor imitation? Is it unusual to see someone being discouraged of critical thinking by the security of "the Bible is the word of God"? Is elitism unknown to the Protestant world? I believe the roots of these unpleasant things are exactly the same whether you find them among RC, Orthodox or Protestants.

Donatello

I blame the parents.

Oh - sorry, wrong thread.

Seriously, all this bickering we do on these threads only goes to prove that the true unity that Christ desired can only come through Catholic unity.

Only by gathering round the one faith, as summarised in the Catechism, can we really be one in faith.

We have a shower of people who reject the Catholic faith but still claim to be Catholic, but they are no more Catholic than a Baptist, or Mormon. Well actually, the Baptist might actually be more Catholic than many of our dissenters.

Festus

Callers to the door ... hmmm... how to handle them...

Preferred methods

1. If you can do a Bernard Black on them, go for it.

2. Invite them in for tea and sandiches.

3. While they're settling down make tea and sandwiches. I prefer Kity Kat. Pedigree Chum should be reserved for the atheists.

3. While they're tucking in open the door and leave ajar.

4. Once they've left close the door.

5. Sit back, relax and enjoy the knowledge that they will probably spread the word to any prospective callers that an invite to tea and sandwiches is their cue for a quick and respectful retreat... at speed.



p.s. crushed epsom salts instead of sugar is really good too

Festus

bit late

philologos

How is it that despite the fact that antiskeptic, wolfsbane, PDN, Fanny Craddock, Jimitime and I are all of different denominations that we can refer to eachother as brothers in Christ? How come we can agree on the core essentials of the Gospel even if we disagree on secondary issues?

I would presume that it is because we have one Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 4:4-6 wrote:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it that despite the fact that antiskeptic, wolfsbane, PDN, Fanny Craddock, Jimitime and I are all of different denominations that we can refer to eachother as brothers in Christ? How come we can agree on the core essentials of the Gospel even if we disagree on secondary issues?

I would presume that it is because we have one Lord Jesus Christ.

maybe you're all closet Catholics

come out, come out!

Brother

philologos

Festus wrote: »

maybe you're all closet Catholics

come out, come out!

We're just Christians. We have a lot of similarities in our beliefs. Why is that? We go to different churches of differing denominations and I presume that we are excited for any Christian mission of any denomination in order that the lost might be found and might come to know the Lord Jesus.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

We're just Christians. We have a lot of similarities in our beliefs. Why is that? We go to different churches of differing denominations and I presume that we are excited for any Christian mission of any denomination in order that the lost might be found and might come to know the Lord Jesus.

When you introduce your wife do you say "that's 'just' my wife"?
When you introduce your child do you say "that's 'just' my child"?
When a non-Christian asks you about the guy on the cross in your place of worship or over your door do you say "that's just Jesus"?

When you intoduce yourself do you say "I'm just [] Jakkass" ?

You don't sound very excited but then you just a Christian.

Is that just as in 'almost' or 'barely' or the Irish just as in 'only'? Or do you mean just as in 'justice'. Presumably not.

Presumably because you are just a Christian you have similarities with many including non-Christians. Why is that?

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

Seriously, all this bickering we do on these threads only goes to prove that the true unity that Christ desired can only come through Catholic unity.

Only by gathering round the one faith, as summarised in the Catechism, can we really be one in faith.

We have a shower of people who reject the Catholic faith but still claim to be Catholic, but they are no more Catholic than a Baptist, or Mormon. Well actually, the Baptist might actually be more Catholic than many of our dissenters.

Seriously?

Imagine you have ten kids playing in a room. Nine of the kids play together quite happily. But the tenth kid insists that he won't play with the others unless they recognise him as boss, because he thinks he's better than anyone else. This, understandably, causes dissension.

Most reasonable folks would correctly identify this particular brat as the problem in the room, and would see the solution to the problem as lying in a much needed attitude adjustment.

You would need to have a very one-eyed perception of reality to insist, "There you are! All that bickering proves that we won't have any peace unless we force the other nine children to acknowledge the little bully as their boss!"

philologos

Festus wrote: »

When you intoduce yourself do you say "I'm just [] Jakkass" ?

I don't introduce myself as Jakkass to anyone off boards.

I don't have a wife or children, but God-willing one day if that is what He desires for me.

Festus wrote: »

You don't sound very excited but then you just a Christian.

You might want to check the other thread. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most exciting thing in the world to me in that it saves and it changes lives forever.

When I say I am just a Christian, I mean that is all that is necessary. It doesn't matter a pick what church I go to as long as I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and I believe in God and I am willing to serve Him alongside Christians.

Ideally there would be just one church and it would be the Christian church standing tall for the Gospel. Honestly, I don't believe that the RCC was this church.

Festus wrote: »

Is that just as in 'almost' or 'barely' or the Irish just as in 'only'? Or do you mean just as in 'justice'. Presumably not.

It means I don't let denominational tit-for-tats get in the way. I am a Christian in that I believe in the Lord Jesus, and what He did in paying for my sins on the cross and I want others to come to a similar understanding. I also want people to respond to this act of grace by living lives as disciples of Jesus. That's more beautiful and exciting than anything the world can give.

Festus wrote: »

Presumably because you are just a Christian you have similarities with many including non-Christians. Why is that?

I have more similarities with Christians than non-Christians. This is why I can safely call PDN, or antiskeptic, JimiTime, wolfsbane, Fanny Craddock or any other Christian on this forum my brother in Christ. Admittedly of those people I've only met PDN but nonetheless I am confident that I could call any Christian on boards.ie my brother in Christ. I've only named these people as examples, I would say the same of any Christian here.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Seriously?

Imagine you have ten kids playing in a room. Nine of the kids play together quite happily. But the tenth kid insists that he won't play with the others unless they recognise him as boss, because he thinks he's better than anyone else. This, understandably, causes dissension.

Most reasonable folks would correctly identify this particular brat as the problem in the room, and would see the solution to the problem as lying in a much needed attitude adjustment.

You would need to have a very one-eyed perception of reality to insist, "There you are! All that bickering proves that we won't have any peace unless we force the other nine children to acknowledge the little bully as their boss!"

Do the math.

The majority of Christians in the world are Catholics so the analogy in the classroom proves what Protestants are really like. Bullys! Threw their toys out of the pram hundreds of years ago and have too much pride to say sorry.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

Ideally there would be just one church and it would be the Christian church standing tall for the Gospel. Honestly, I don't believe that the RCC was this church.

Christ only founded One Church. So which of the 40,000 thousand others outside of the Catholic Church is it?

philologos

Festus wrote: »

Christ only founded One Church. So which of the 40,000 thousand others outside of the Catholic Church is it?

The RCC could be equally as wrong as the 40,000 others.

I believe the original church was simply the Christian church. RCC came after Constantine. The RCC did not exist in its current form before then.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

The RCC could be equally as wrong as the 40,000 others.

So they are all wrong?

Wow!

Or is even one right?

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the original church was simply the Christian church. RCC came after Constantine. The RCC did not exist in its current form before then.

Have you tried studying history?

The Church existed before Constantine, in form and function. All that changed with Constantine was the name.

If you have difficulty with history not to worry, this has been discussed on boards before.

So tell me. when did the other 40,000 come into being and why?

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Do the math.

The majority of Christians in the world are Catholics so the analogy in the classroom proves what Protestants are really like. Bullys! Threw their toys out of the pram hundreds of years ago and have too much pride to say sorry.

Ah, the numbers game?

The statistics for 'members' of the Catholic Church count everyone who has been baptized as a baby. So, in Ireland for example, they include the majority of prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers etc. They also include the majority of the regulars over on the A&A Forum. You're welcome to whatever credibility you think you gain by counting such people as part of your flock.

It also takes a particular gall to somehow claim that those who say, "No thanks, we don't want to be part of your organisation" are thereby bullies.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Ah, the numbers game?

The statistics for 'members' of the Catholic Church count everyone who has been baptized as a baby. So, in Ireland for example, they include the majority of prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers etc. They also include the majority of the regulars over on the A&A Forum. You're welcome to whatever credibility you think you gain by counting such people as part of your flock.

So no sinners in your flock then... somewhat discriminating is it?

Funny that, didn't Jesus come to heal the sick and save the sinners?
Did Jesus not surround himself with sinners?

PDN wrote: »

It also takes a particular gall to somehow claim that those who say, "No thanks, we don't want to be part of your organisation" are thereby bullies.

That was your claim.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

So they are all wrong?

All churches fall into human error from time to time, this is why we have to ask the Holy Spirit to continually guide us in approaching the idea of Christianity.

Festus wrote: »

Have you tried studying history?

The Church existed before Constantine, in form and function. All that changed with Constantine was the name.

If you have difficulty with history not to worry, this has been discussed on boards before.

The Christian church existed before Constantine. The RCC existed from Constantine onwards.

The Christian Church == RCC solely.

Festus wrote: »

So tell me. when did the other 40,000 come into being and why?

There were other churches in existence at the time when the RCC was. Two examples are the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Mar Thoma Church. So appalled were the Portuguese in Kerala at the idea that there was already a functioning church dated to Apostolic times in Kerala that they attempted to impose RCC authority over it destroying much of the previous identity it had.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

Seriously, all this bickering we do on these threads only goes to prove that the true unity that Christ desired can only come through Catholic unity.

Only by gathering round the one faith, as summarised in the Catechism, can we really be one in faith.

I take it that 'proof' in this instance is utilised as a figure of speech

-

We were discussing how it was you figure your personal interpretations regarding the One True Church to be correct. Yet how it was that you simultaneously frown upon personal interpretion.

Or was it just me asking and you skipping the question?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

So no sinners in your flock then... somewhat discriminating is it? Funny that, didn't Jesus come to heal the sick and save the sinners? Did Jesus not surround himself with sinners?

He did indeed. And when he saved them, their lives where transformed and they moved on from prostitution, pimping .. and atheism. You've vast quantities of people utterly unaffected by virtue of being Roman Catholic Christians (which is something different to sinners remaining sinners)

antiskeptic

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

It's a big doctrine. Big enough to demand a bit more than a verse. So keep building your case in this regard.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Again, enormous doctrine hauled from a text which itself doesn't actually say this.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority.

Says who? Just because Peter takes action doesn't automatically mean his action is Spirit-inspired.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

I'll guess that the same applies here as above. You're resting a lot of doctrine on not a lot of scripture. Perhaps you could rest from the recounting of Catholic doctrine arrived at so and substantiate from a starting point - for example: how you establish the church as you do.

From what scripture says mind - not from what you lay onto scripture.


-

Of course not, and I have no doubt you are a good Christian, and once you have honestly studied all the early church teachings and practices, if in all true conscience, you still believe in rejecting the Churches teachings, then so be it.

Could you give me a reason why I should be particularily concerned to study early church teachings (as if that provides an accurate clue to what scripture itself teaches)? Bearing in mind scripture clearly indicating the very early church itself going astray on not-insignificant points.

hinault

PDN wrote: »

Seriously?

Imagine you have ten kids playing in a room. Nine of the kids play together quite happily. But the tenth kid insists that he won't play with the others unless they recognise him as boss, because he thinks he's better than anyone else. This, understandably, causes dissension.

Most reasonable folks would correctly identify this particular brat as the problem in the room, and would see the solution to the problem as lying in a much needed attitude adjustment.

You would need to have a very one-eyed perception of reality to insist, "There you are! All that bickering proves that we won't have any peace unless we force the other nine children to acknowledge the little bully as their boss!"

This is way off the mark.

It is not a question of the RCC trying to assert it's view over everyone elses.
Those that chose to disagree from the RCC are free to do so.
But their dissent doesn't invalidate the assertion by the RCC that it (RCC) is the one true church.
That position has fixed since the inception of the Church 2,000 years ago.

Of course dissenters claim that their view cannot be accommodated within the RCC and will claim that the RCC is authoritarian.
30,000 separate reformed denominations tells you all you need to know about the extent of dissent.

As someone who is a practicing RC, I don't find the church repressive or unwilling to argue with authority.
We're a broad church and a wide variety of views with different emphasis is tolerated and encouraged with the RCC.
Of course, you would say that you expect me to say all of this - but it is the truth.
I am sure that my fellow RC's don't feel repressed/oppressed either.

Donatello

Jakkass wrote: »

All churches fall into human error from time to time, this is why we have to ask the Holy Spirit to continually guide us in approaching the idea of Christianity.



The Christian church existed before Constantine. The RCC existed from Constantine onwards.

The Christian Church == RCC solely.


There were other churches in existence at the time when the RCC was. Two examples are the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Mar Thoma Church. So appalled were the Portuguese in Kerala at the idea that there was already a functioning church dated to Apostolic times in Kerala that they attempted to impose RCC authority over it destroying much of the previous identity it had.

That group is a 'Reformed church' according to your article, which is terribly badly written. Its sounds a lot like a group of Protestants are trying to claim historicity if you ask me. I'm not convinced.

Another thing to bear in mind that many Christians over time have fallen into heresy. The guarantee of Christ was only that Peter's faith would not fail - he was to confirm the brethren after things went pear-shaped, which over history, they have.

The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is the real deal. It seems the group you mentioned must have split off around the time of the Protestant Unrest.

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

That group is a 'Reformed church' according to your article, which is terribly badly written. Its sounds a lot like a group of Protestants are trying to claim historicity if you ask me. I'm not convinced.

It was in existence more than likely prior to Roman Catholicism.

This didn't change until 1500AD when the Portuguese colonised Kerala.

Donatello wrote: »

Another thing to bear in mind that many Christians over time have fallen into heresy. The guarantee of Christ was only that Peter's faith would not fail - he was to confirm the brethren after things went pear-shaped, which over history, they have.

Heresy as defined by the RCC which is circular reasoning.

Donatello wrote: »

The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is the real deal. It seems the group you mentioned must have split off around the time of the Protestant Unrest.

On what basis are you saying this, because historically there simply is none. It was only during the 20th century that the Mar Thoma Church came into communion with Anglicanism.

philologos

Donatello, your own article documents the interference the Portuguese made in that church, and that they were originally called St. Thomas Christians rather than being formally in communion with Rome.

The Portuguese Admiral Vasco da Gama landed at Calicut on 20 May 1498.[9] When he and the Portuguese missionaries arrived they found no Christians in the country except in Malabar.[citation needed] The Christians they found were St. Thomas Christians. The Christians were friendly to Portuguese missionaries at first; there was an exchange of gifts between them, and these groups were delighted at their common faith.[10] Later, due to certain differences mainly in the liturgy, the relations between them became more and more strained. Under the Padroado (patronage) agreement with the Holy See the Portuguese missionaries started to interfere and things took a turn for the worse. They suspected the Indian Christians of heresy and schism and wanted to introduce the Latin customs and Latin manner of ecclesiastical administration, severing the East Syrian connection.

The RCC didn't set up there until roughly 1500's:

Portuguese started a Roman Catholic (Latin Rite) diocese in Goa (1534) and another at Cochin (1558) in the hope of bringing the St. Thomas Christians under their jurisdiction

The Reformation that happened there was simply to restore the rites that they had before the RCC and later Anglican interference. Now the Anglican Communion has a good relationship with them.

Donatello

Jakkass wrote: »

Donatello, your own article documents the interference the Portuguese made in that church, and that they were originally called St. Thomas Christians rather than being formally in communion with Rome.



The RCC didn't set up there until roughly 1500's:


The Reformation that happened there was simply to restore the rites that they had before the RCC and later Anglican interference. Now the Anglican Communion has a good relationship with them.

It should be noted that anyone can write or edit Wikipedia, and the English was quite bad in that entry, so who's to say the information is accurate?

Anyhow, the Lord willed Peter as the means of unity in His Church. Remember that St. Thomas was one of ours! All the Churches that might have been or that became detached were eager to pursue communion with the Holy See at the earliest opportunity. It is only human sin which leads to heresy and schisms, especially pride.

Catholic unity - Deus vult!