Faith in God and the Church - Part 2 of 2 The Catholic Faith

by Amazing 63 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  lovelylil

  I am with Mike and RAF on this one;

  Jim most certainly did imply that the RC is the only true historic church from the Apostles time to ours. And having been a member of the RC and having 90% of my family still in the RC, that church teaches that Christ gave them alone authority over all Christians on earth. And what I, Mike and RAF are trying to say is that the True Church has nothing to do with an organized relgious denomination on earth today. It is simply the body of believers (people) united in Christ by the Holy Spirit. You can belong to a denomination if you wish but belonging to a certain one does NOT make you part of the True Church. Having Christ "in you" DOES make you part of the true church.

  This is a very easy concept to understand. Jim, people's reactions are not directed at you personally, but rather the RC. Being that many of us (myself included) were not only burned by the WT but the RC as well. And while the WT's doctrines are very different from the RC - the WT's hierarchy is almost IDENTICAL to that of the RC, except that the different ranks have different names.

  Like I said before, I accept you as a brother in the Christian faith but NOT because you are a member of the RC, because you were baptized into Christ, as I was. And while I accept your personal testimony and your experince in the RC I do take exception to the fact that you did imply (although you may not have meant to) that the RC is the true historic church, thereby they would be the only true church to belong to. I see the RC has done a good job of indoctrinating you with that belief as they did with the rest of my family. But while they may believe this to be a truth, it is an abosolute lie. They have no authority to say WHO is in Christ's church and WHO is not. And since they continue to do this, you cannot blame anyone in Christ's church (his body of believers) to take offense to that. Peace, Lilly
• 

  LittleToe

  Lil:

  Like I said before, I accept you as a brother in the Christian faith but NOT because you are a member of the RC, because you were baptized into Christ, as I was.

  If we really want to get down to straining out the gnat, I wouldn't necessarily accept someone as being in Christ merely because of baptism. I'm not of the belief that Baptism confers salvation - the Holy Spirit does (as one of His peculiar offices). Plenty of people were baptised without ever having come to know Christ. Plenty of people became Christians without ever getting baptised (e.g. the thief on the cross).

  I also don't agree that the RC hierarchy is directly comparable to the WTS, either. The WTS is closer to being a perversion of the Presbyterian form of church government, hence I see more parallels with the church that I attend than with Jim's.

  And don't even get me started on transubstantiation

  The bottom line, to me, seems to be that the WTS has picked and chosen from all over the religious spectrum. You'll not directly be able to identify it with any other religion, far less the RC that it so detests, and yet it has borrowed from many.

  LT, of the "Reformed" class.
• 

  lovelylil

  LT,

  I agree with the point you made on baptism. I only used Baptism into Christ with Jim becuase I know he was baptised. But you certainly are correct, some people are in Christ even though they had no formal "baptism". They are in him, due to their faith in him. I wasn't trying to be dogmatic. And I thank you for bringing that point out. The main point I was trying to emphasis is that you do not need to belong to any church organization to be part of Christ's body. Christ himself decides who is and who is not in him. And the example you brought out of the man on the cross actually shows this point nicely. Lilly
• 

  Amazing

  This thread is growing faster than I can now keep up. So, I will say this: Little Toe has bast grasped the spirit and intent of what I was trying to convey. Some of the rest appear combative when there is really nothing to fight about. I agree the comments that we are guided by the Holy Spirit, otherwise I would not pray to the Holy Spirit. I am not going to respond to claims that I now "implied" this or that or that I am meaning this or that. Such statements really end up in arguments that go nowhere.

  But, some seem to think that there is this invisible Church that really has no roots in the Apostles, that exist willy-nilly and thus no need for any authority. So, in effect you only believe in part of the Bible, because the Bible was quite clear that there is a congregation order, there are Pastors (Priests, Presbyters, Elders) and there are Bishops (Overseers, Episkopoi,) and Deacons (Ministers) which have direct charge over the operation of the Church. Not all are teachers, and not are Evangelizers, etc. When one examines history, one finds that Bishops collectively did constitute the collective "catholic" or "universal" church which was quite united and functioned well together with the same beliefs. This is what constitutes the historic Church that today is the root stock of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

  The questions are: Is there some "invisible" body of christians that have no identitiy in any denomination, but are scattered everywhere, and thus no cohesive congregation sturcture because of this scattering? Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit fail to protect the original Church, and thus it no longer exist today? Or is there a cohesive Church with proper authority passed down and conferred upon each successive generation of Chrustians that we can point to as the one continuing Church?

  Answer to the questions: Each person on this board has a different opinion and has answered these questions for themselves. Good for them. Be satisfied with your decisions and stop trying to convince me otherwise. I don't want to debate or preach religion. I left that business long ago. I consider them all to be Christians unless they state they are not Christians. I accept that you are saved and will go to heaven. I do not expect you to become Catholics. If you don't agree with the Catholic Church, then fine, that is your right. I don't agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches either. But it is a Christian faith that is one good path to salvation through Jesus Christ. It is rooted in the early Church as the Orthodox is. These two are the only Churches that can make such a claim. That is historic fact. Beyond that, I said or implied nothing notwithstanding the insistence of some to the contrary. As Litte Toe stated, I merely gave a testimony of why I reconciled with the Catholic Church. I clearly stated that was my only intention.

  We do not need to argue about Catholicism: The Catholic Church is what it is, and I accept it with its flaws. Hell, I have enough of my own flaws to get me a ticket straight to Hell (Hades, the Grave, Lake of Fire, or whatever tickles your fancy). So, I am our of the Judgemental business. If God lets the likes of me into heaven, then who in the hell am I to criticize who else he lets in from whatever path they took. I like you all and find no real need to argue with you, or debate your spiritual journey. You do what you do, and that is fine by me. My journey has taken on a reconciled direction with the faith of my birth, and that is fine for me.

  Mike S. I will look over your reply and try to give a short and meaningful response. I will do so in a PM to you. It may be a while.

  Next: I have put up a post about the Bible, not to promote Catholicism, but to point out some realities that those who accept the NT need to consider. I will next post about praying to the Holy Spirit, not to urge other to do the same, but to explain why I do. Last, I will deal with the Church as I see it ... and not to promote Catholicism to anyone.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  a Christian

  Hi Jim,

  You wrote: in effect you only believe in part of the Bible, because the Bible was quite clear that there is a congregation order, there are Pastors (Priests, Presbyters, Elders) and there are Bishops (Overseers, Episkopoi,) and Deacons (Ministers) which have direct charge over the operation of the Church.

  No, the Bible is quite clear on how the apostles wished that Christians who regularly meet together should order their associations. However, like most everything else taught by Christ and His apostles, after the deaths of the apostles, few Christians continued to pay attention to what the apostles taught pertaining to rules of church order.

  This includes the men who developed what soon came to be known as the "Catholic Church." They greatly expanded upon an arrangement that the apostles said should include "elders" who would be qualified to teach along with "ministers" who would tend to the ordinary needs of people attending Christian meetings. They did so by creating a multi-level church hierarchy far beyond that created by the apostles. They also gave their "Priests" power to forgive sins, a power which the Bible tells us no man has and no man needs. For Christ is the only Priest we need and He constantly appears directly before the throne of God on our behalf, offering to God the value of His shed blood for the forgiveness of our sins. (Heb. 4 - 10)

  You asked: Is there some "invisible" body of christians that have no identitiy in any denomination, but are scattered everywhere, and thus no cohesive congregation sturcture because of this scattering?

  I say yes. But I'm not sure what you are saying. I take it you are saying, "No." But at the same time you seem to agree that there are true Christians, members of Christ's body - His church - in all denominations. I don't think you can have it both ways, Jim. Is the Roman Catholic Church Christ's one true Church or is it not?

  You asked: Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit fail to protect the original Church, and thus it no longer exist today?

  Jesus and the Holy Spirit failed to make certain that all Christians would follow Christ's own instructions to His followers and those of His apostles. In fact, they both said that they knew that after they left this earth that an "apostasy" ( aka a "rebellion" ) would take place against their teachings, including the apostles' teachings on how best Christians who regularly meet together should order their associations.

  You asked: Or is there a cohesive Church with proper authority passed down and conferred upon each successive generation of Chrustians that we can point to as the one continuing Church?

  No, there is not. For Christ gave such authority only to His apostles. And He did not give them authority to pass their authority to others, who in turn would then have the authority to pass their authority to others and so forth. If you disagree, please show me where in the Scriptures such a thing is clearly taught. Also, if you accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" why are you not submitting yourself to this supposed authority by rejecting several of their teachings?

  You wrote: Next: I have put up a post about the Bible, not to promote Catholicism, but to point out some realities that those who accept the NT need to consider. I will next post about praying to the Holy Spirit, not to urge other to do the same, but to explain why I do. Last, I will deal with the Church as I see it ... and not to promote Catholicism to anyone.

  No doubt you will be claiming that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. I hope someone else here will point out the fallacy of that argument. For I will soon have little time to read or respond to posts on this board.

  Mike
• 

  LittleToe

  Next thread in series (about the New Testament):

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/128205/1.ashx
• 

  lovelylil

  Mike,

  You were right and I just posted on that thread. Jim IS asserting that the RC church gave the world the Bible and in fact he claims they are the ones who declared it inspired! I felt like I was back in RC school! Jims arguement is copied right from their own teachings. Boy, of boy some people cannot understand what the Church really is. Lilly
• 

  greendawn

  Hi Mike, I think you are going too far with the apostasy concept, that the church suddenly went apostate as soon as the last Apostle died. Paul may have been refering to the Gnostics or the Judaisers who were indeed apostates rather than the beliefs of what came to be known as the Catholic Church. Given the lack of a proper book to go by (the NT was put together later) and the circulation of so many books that later proved to be false the early Church did a reasonably good job of upholding the Apostolic faith in the midst of vicious persecutions by Romans and Jews alike. To be sure there were ambitious and selfish leaders that eventually caused a lot of harm by uniting with the Roman state and secularising the church in the 4th century but still I don't think the Grace of the Spirit went out, much as the Jews had done a lot of wrong doing in their history yet God hadn't rejected them as His people (until they crucified Christ). To be sure in due time Christ will send his Angels to punish all those creating scandals and divisions. Ultimately the Church is the Christ ie the body of the Christ, the genuine members if you like across all denominations regardless of what the history and behaviour of other fellow members has been.
• 

  Amazing

  Greendawn,

  Ecxcellent commentary. I only take exception with a couple of items ... but those will be addressed in my next post on the Church. All in all your comments reflect good historical background and balance. Thanks.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  reneeisorym

  The problem I see with the Catholic Church is this:

  If you decide to let someone interpret the Bible for me, than any one of them could be right. Then I have no idea which one to follow since they all say something different from the Bible. Then I have a choice between Mormon, JW, Catholic or Orthodoxy. I just think that scripture is sufficient. Jesus Himself supports this idea.

  "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. 'But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'

  "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that" (Mk. 7:6-13).

  There was a written record even in Moses's day. Even in an oral culture, Moses wrote down the ten commandments and the law.

  "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2). "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it" (Deut. 12:32)

  I studies the Greek Orthodox church for a while too. This is what disturbed me in the book I got about them: The Bible must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church.

  I could write a book but I'll stop here. I just wanted you to understand the logic of prodestants.

  Renee