- This topic has 1 reply, 13 voices, and was last updated 20 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[color=darkblue:11g21cjz]This lack of unity of belief is one of the reasons athat I could never return to any non-Catholic church…It just doesn’t come off right…and by that I mean that if the Holy Spirit was really leading their interps of the Bible they would indeed have all the same essential doctrines..especially on topics like salvation and baptism! Then there’s all the cheapshots at each other and especially at us…SHEESH!
Pax vobiscum,
Mike[/color:11g21cjz]
But isn’t the Roman Catholic Church working towards unity? I tought I heard of some official meetings or instances where Catholics have come to an agreement on certain doctrines with particular denominations such as with Lutherans and Orthodox churches? Does anyone know anything about that?
Yes, there is ongoing discussion between Catholics and Lutherans. Oddly enough it is called “Catholic and Lutherans in Dialogue”. It takes place right here in the Twin Cities.
Also, in 1999, Catholics and Lutherans signed a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification[/url:3qf3tvs1]. It basically means that Lutherans and Catholics have finally come to an agreement on justification (after 500 years).
So, there is some dialogue.
Also, I know there is a Pontifical Council for Interreligious Affairs (or something like that) as well as an Ecumenical Council and they have many ongoing dialogues with people of other faiths.
hey jon, i’m of protestant faith, and to say all protestants hate catholics is WAY out of line. my girlfriend is catholic and i love her more than any person on this earth. and as far as i know, evangelical beliefs are based largely on the fact that Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life, NO ONE gets to the Father but by Me…so obvioulsy, we’re not automatcially going to heaven as you say we think we are. we have to live a Godly life, and believe that Jesus is Lord and ruler of our lives. and while we’re on the topic, how do catholics believe you get to heaven? i’m not saying this is true of all catholics, but some particular ones i’ve been around regularly take God’s name in vain, drink alcohol…is this ok? or is showing up to mass now and then and crossing yourself at grace and not eating meat on fridays going to make everything ok?
ctdmsl, I can’t speak for Jon, but I don’t think he meant [b:7h549fd5]all[/b:7h549fd5]. As catholics we experience and observe the enmity that [b:7h549fd5]many[/b:7h549fd5] Protestants have toward the Catholic Church. It’s good to know that you don’t have that. But do recognize that it’s alive and true for many denominations. I know the church I went to when I was a protestant did. You don’t see this at all ctdmsl?
In Christ
~Victor
You know, I used to bash Catholics for their behavior. I knew several who were “ethnically” RC, and had turned their back on it altogether. Frankly, the only place I’ve ever met committed RC’s is here and on CHN.
Now that I’ve said that, I can say similar to the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), the Southern Baptist Denomination…Heck, I can say that about ME!
Haven’t we all slipped? Haven’t we all faced days — weeks, or years? — where we didn’t want to think about Christ, let alone examine ourselves on a continuing basis and press on in His mercy?
It is a good thing that God ordained things so that it is pretty much always raining grace. I know that I couldn’t handle things if He weren’t that way.
I hear you, Victor, about anti-RC protestant denominations, and I say here, as I’ve written elsewhere — Following Christ is no place for sissies! Helping each other on the way is not just the least we can do, it is imperative. Disagreement is fine, as long as we remember that all of us need helping brothers and sisters, and that they will need us sometime, too. Why fight? Why quibble? I’m a Presbyterian deacon, and you know what I say? For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.
I completely agree Elka. I wish we didn’t have to fight and quibble. And I still don’t think we should. We should extend charity and Love to our brothers no matter how wrong you may think they are. For all of us, this is a daily struggle and I ask that you pray for me and all that we may seek truth and in that you will get closer to our Lord. A man seeking truth has nothing too fear !!
I am an optimist that is fully aware that differences do exist and that I also seek to understand even if I think I already do. Listening is deffinately important in bridging differences.
The Least in Christ
~Victor
Protestant unity is an oxymoron. It’s a verifiable fact that protestants and their hundreds of denominations are in continuous and blatant schism, either with the Church or with one another. It’s saddening, to say the least.
Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church and prayed for Christians that we may all be one. Are the protestant churches the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that the Apostles and many early christian generations gave their lives for?
Protestantism and all its sects are a obvious schism of the Catholic Church that unfortunately took place in the 16th Century. The Church of Christ is 2000 years old, tracing her origins to Peter and the Apostles in an unbreaking apostolic succession. It is the Catholic Church.
The Church since before the Council of Nicea has always detested schism and punished those who practiced it. However, I am pretty tired of Protestant bashing as a form of revenge because they have done the same and continue to do it in many circles.
Sola Scriptura messed things up. Hermeneutically their is no such thing, granted. However it should be noted that the Catholic Church prior to the establishment of Rome being its center had always faced schism within the Church, and for the most part it was handled quite gracefully.
[quote:37osqgsb]Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church and prayed for Christians that we may all be one. Are the protestant churches the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that the Apostles and many early christian generations gave their lives for?
[/quote:37osqgsb]Naturally, nothing will overcome the Church of Christ. Did Christ establish the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps indirectly, I believe so. Who is the Church? Is it only those who belong to the outward institution of the Roman Catholic Church? Roman Catholics should stick to believing what is given to them by those they place their trust in. The Roman Catholic Church believes salvation is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church became an external vehicle of an internal faith. The internal faith community of the Church had withstood persecution for a long time prior to the Roman Catholic Church. When the Church decided to become an external institution (churchstate) many good things resulted but many bad things as well.
[quote:37osqgsb]Protestantism and all its sects are a obvious schism of the Catholic Church that unfortunately took place in the 16th Century. The Church of Christ is 2000 years old, tracing her origins to Peter and the Apostles in an unbreaking apostolic succession. It is the Catholic Church[/quote:37osqgsb]
What is the Church of Christ? To the Roman Catholic it is commonly the Roman Catholic Church. To a Protestant, it is all who profess faith in Jesus Christ as the means of salvation. Can any Roman Catholic deny that a simple profession such as this is all that one needs to be a member of the Church that Jesus empowered?
Are Protestants lost from the link that brings them back to the Early Church in which supposedly the Roman Catholic Church has maintained? As I see it, both are guilty of losing sight of the original Church. The Reformation was an atrocity but an inevitable one! Similarly, the Church established through Constantine and Theodosius became a stately Church rather than a spiritual Church and soon became a secularized Church institution.
Both have missed so much, both have hurt so much, and I think most of us here can recognize that the Church has always made mistakes. However, Christ is not absent in any form of the Church; Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, etc.
Yes, schism is horrible. I wish as a Protestant that the Church never became a state institution and that the Reformation would then have never occured. I wish their was no need for a supreme representative of Christ on earth, and that the bishops and presbyters had remained faithful throughout history in which no bishop of bishops was needed to prevent further schism. Disunity is maintained institutionally, but spiritually Christ has joined every Christian.
[quote:37osqgsb]It’s saddening, to say the least.[/quote:37osqgsb]
[quote:15uzchcr]Sola Scriptura messed things up. Hermeneutically their is no such thing, granted. However it should be noted that the Catholic Church prior to the establishment of Rome being its center had always faced schism within the Church, and for the most part it was handled quite gracefully.[/quote:15uzchcr]
I’m glad to see that you understand the protestant concept of [i:15uzchcr]Sola Scriptura[/i:15uzchcr] to be unsustainable. Now, gracefully or not, the fact is that the Church had to permanently deal with schism throughout her history. The good thing is that heresy and schism have been constantly and succesfully repelled and the uncompromising defense of right belief ([i:15uzchcr]orthodoxia[/i:15uzchcr]) and right practice ([i:15uzchcr]orthopraxia[/i:15uzchcr]) constitute pillars of truth that stood against these countless blows. The Church is the sole recipient of Faith, the Faith of the Apostles as handed down by Christ Himself.
[quote:15uzchcr]Naturally, nothing will overcome the Church of Christ. Did Christ establish the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps indirectly, I believe so. [/quote:15uzchcr]
You’re quite close, brother.
” title=”Wink” />[quote:15uzchcr]The Roman Catholic Church became an external vehicle of an internal faith. The internal faith community of the Church had withstood persecution for a long time prior to the Roman Catholic Church. When the Church decided to become an external institution (churchstate) many good things resulted but many bad things as well.[/quote:15uzchcr]
I think that you’d agree that Christ intended His Church to be visible, not invisible. Also, we all agree that good and bad things resulted from the fact of Christianity and its Church becoming the sole religion of the Empire. But, despite the abuses throughout the centuries, the Church has held steadfast to her doctrine and never taught wrong. Nor can she, for she is under the supervision and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Faith is, always has been and must be the same and its legitimacy derives from the Apostolic Sucession and Holy Tradition and Scriptures. That’s why the early Church was already the Catholic Church.
[quote:15uzchcr]Can any Roman Catholic deny that a simple profession such as this is all that one needs to be a member of the Church that Jesus empowered?[/quote:15uzchcr]
Yes, baptism (traditional or of blood) is required to be reborn into God’s fold, His Church. Faith in Christ is essential, don’t get me wrong, but it is not all that you need to be member of the Church that Jesus empowered.
[quote:15uzchcr]Are Protestants lost from the link that brings them back to the Early Church in which supposedly the Roman Catholic Church has maintained?[/quote:15uzchcr]
Historically and doctrinally, yes. It’s easy to verify this.
[quote:15uzchcr]The Reformation was an atrocity but an inevitable one![/quote:15uzchcr]
Some kind of reformation could and can happen, but only inside of the Church, not outside of it. That’s the fault of Luther, Calvin and others.
[quote:15uzchcr]Similarly, the Church established through Constantine and Theodosius became a stately Church rather than a spiritual Church and soon became a secularized Church institution.[/quote:15uzchcr]
At some degree, yes unfortunately. But the deposit of true Faith remained up to this day, as well as the legitimacy of the holy orders and of the other sacraments. Despite being a Church of sinners, the Church always conveys the Truth through divine guidance and protection.
[quote:15uzchcr]However, Christ is not absent in any form of the Church; Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, etc.[/quote:15uzchcr]
Of course not, and He can save many christians and others through His divine grace. But the only Church that mantains the full deposit of Faith, invested by divine authority (Christ and the Holy Spirit) and legitimized through Apostolic Sucession is the Catholic Church, His Church. The Orthodox have Apostolic Sucession as well but they broke off with the Catholic Church in the 11th Century, so they are in schism.
[quote:15uzchcr]Yes, schism is horrible. I wish as a Protestant that the Church never became a state institution and that the Reformation would then have never occured.[/quote:15uzchcr]
Similar thoughts, here.
[quote:15uzchcr]I wish their was no need for a supreme representative of Christ on earth, and that the bishops and presbyters had remained faithful throughout history in which no bishop of bishops was needed to prevent further schism.[/quote:15uzchcr]
Though it may be your wish, it is not Christ’s wish. He invested Peter with the authority and power to lead His Church and feed His sheep.
[quote:15uzchcr]Disunity is maintained institutionally, but spiritually Christ has joined every Christian.[/quote:15uzchcr]
We all pray for that, like everytime we say the rosary: [i:15uzchcr]«O my Jesus, forgive us of our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.»[/i:15uzchcr]
[quote:15uzchcr]It’s saddening, to say the least.[/quote:15uzchcr]
Amen.
[quote:30y82o0n]Naturally, nothing will overcome the Church of Christ. Did Christ establish the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps indirectly, I believe so. Who is the Church? Is it only those who belong to the outward institution of the Roman Catholic Church? Roman Catholics should stick to believing what is given to them by those they place their trust in. The Roman Catholic Church believes salvation is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church became an external vehicle of an internal faith. The internal faith community of the Church had withstood persecution for a long time prior to the Roman Catholic Church. When the Church decided to become an external institution (churchstate) many good things resulted but many bad things as well. [/quote:30y82o0n]
[color=darkblue:30y82o0n]Me thinks you are seeing The Church of Christ as a sorta of subjective unidentified group of believers. The Catholic Church isn’t just a Church amongst many, but rather it is the Church of Christ. Perhaps the focus on the word [b:30y82o0n]Roman[/b:30y82o0n] is what throws people off. It is a rite and also a province on a larger scale. It is identifiable, tangible, subjective, objective, and spiritual all in One. But it is certainly [b:30y82o0n]not just[/b:30y82o0n] a collection of unidentified belivers that may or may not be like-minded.
And on another note the Catholic Church does not believe that there will be Non-Catholics in heaven. For everyone in heaven will be catholic. Thanks be to God. The confusion comes in on whether those in heaven were catholic while on earth. One thing is for sure, they had Grace in their soul at the time of death. Whether they called themselves catholic or were even part of the Catholic Church is uncertain. That is only something known to God himself. I usually explain it to my students by saying “they are catholic, they just don’t know they are”. There are some Protestants that have gotten to a point in their spiritual life that their theology is so catholic that they may not even be aware of it. What prohibits them from joining the Catholic Church is again something only known to God and I’m sure we all trust his wisdom in doing so.[/color:30y82o0n]
nice hint (?) lolI see many churches in Protestantism that are amazing. Many have searched history, Scriptures, Tradition very thoroughly and cannot come to grips with the corruptions the Catholic Church has endured. I may be one of them. The idealism of the CAtholic Church for me is wonderful, if it only it were as simple and good as you say it is. As you say many Protestants have become so Catholic in their thinking that they do not know it. Luther was one of them. Why did so many break away from Luther? Because he was seen as more CAtholic than the Catholics… The mass became hungry for the Church prior to the Roman control; a church without corrupted liturgy, a church without indescriminate baptism (a horrible tragedy of the RC that many still cannot forget, though it would be good if they forgave and forgot), secular bishop rule, the sexual sins of the popes, the list just keeps going on and on.
I find the Catholic Church so compelling, as does one of my other friends of whom I have spent my time studying theology with. However, there is an incredible amount of things that we have trouble coming to grips with (see above). One thing I am certain of Protestantism, it has saught to re-establish Christian worship in the way it was originally prior to Roman rule. And since the Reformation Christians everywhere have taken more seriously not only the Scriptures but what the Scriptures teach us. I have entered a number of Catholic Churches and I fail to find much spiritual life in them, not even from the priests. I can think of so many Protestant churches where I have seen so much life in the members that I cannot look to CAtholicism unless Christ himself showed me that only Catholicism works. Or, perhaps, unless I saw the same faith in a Catholic Church and the same fire. sigh… My congregation worships with their whole heart, soul, and mind and for me that is where I must also place my worship. If this church is to be called a “Protestant” church, then so be it. If I found this in a Catholic Church, then perhaps I would have no problem attending there.
Those who belong to the Church of Christ worship him in spirit and in truth.
And all God’s people said, amen.
There is no historical evidence of any Pope receiving authority through Peter, ideologically it makes sense that the mass has chosen bishops through the work of the Holy Spirit over a couple hundred years but this is guess work that no council agreed upon.
This split breaks my heart. If only our leaders could acknowledge each other and come together again and reset history. Amen?
[quote:k9ajc1c8]I see many churches in Protestantism that are amazing. [/quote:k9ajc1c8]
[color=darkblue:k9ajc1c8]So do I. I hardly bump into a catholic that feels there is nothing to learn from brothers in the Protestants Churches.[/color:k9ajc1c8]
[quote:k9ajc1c8]Many have searched history, Scriptures, Tradition very thoroughly and cannot come to grips with the corruptions the Catholic Church has endured. I may be one of them. [/quote:k9ajc1c8]
[color=darkblue:k9ajc1c8]This is not a catholic phenomenon. But a human problem that has infected those inside the Church and outside of it. Corruption is nothing new, and I don’t expect it to go away. Christ promised to protect truth, not the actions of men. [/color:k9ajc1c8]
[quote:k9ajc1c8]The idealism of the Catholic Church for me is wonderful, if it only it were as simple and good as you say it is. [/quote:k9ajc1c8]
[color=darkblue:k9ajc1c8]I’m sorry, but where exactly did I give that impression?
Idealist approaches are usually of the most complex and often requires one to hit the “I believe” button.[/color:k9ajc1c8]
[quote:k9ajc1c8]As you say many Protestants have become so Catholic in their thinking that they do not know it. Luther was one of them. [/quote:k9ajc1c8]
[color=darkblue:k9ajc1c8]I would argue that Luther had rather peculiar perspectives of Catholic doctrine while being a catholic. Because Luther had a very profound negative association of failing beyond what most of us would experience he was a perfectionist in his spiritual life. To most of us being a perfectionist would not be such a bad thing; especially if it deals with God’s will. But for Luther it had a whole different affect. It eventually affected his understanding of salvation and the rest is history.[/color:k9ajc1c8]
[quote:k9ajc1c8]Why did so many break away from Luther? Because he was seen as more Catholic than the Catholics… The mass became hungry for the Church prior to the Roman control; a church without corrupted liturgy, a church without indescriminate baptism (a horrible tragedy of the RC that many still cannot forget, though it would be good if they forgave and forgot), secular bishop rule, the sexual sins of the popes, the list just keeps going on and on. [/quote:k9ajc1c8]
[color=darkblue:k9ajc1c8]Although exaggerated by some, it does no good to argue for the sins men. I simply say guilty and move on. So how do I deal with these realities you pointed out? Well I ask myself questions like:
Does corruption in a Church imply that they are not teaching the truth?
Although Luther was somewhat justified in complaining to the Church hierarchs, was it ok for him to separate himself from an organization that contained truth but had some bad men in it?
What justifies a separation?
How did the early Church resolve issues? Hint: See Acts 15[/color:k9ajc1c8]
[quote:k9ajc1c8]I find the Catholic Church so compelling, as does one of my other friends of whom I have spent my time studying theology with. However, there is an incredible amount of things that we have trouble coming to grips with (see above). [/quote:k9ajc1c8]
[color=darkblue:k9ajc1c8]It is not your burden to “come to grips” with it. Why do you feel you have to?
As I said above Christ established a Church as an objective channel to protect and teach truth. No corruption or bad act can mess with that. That is what I hold on to. The fact that you have had men screw things up and still have truth remain in a 2,000 year rather impresses me. Left in the hands of men alone, they would have drove it to the ground in the first 100 years. [/color:k9ajc1c8]
[quote:k9ajc1c8]One thing I am certain of Protestantism, it has saught to re-establish Christian worship in the way it was originally prior to Roman rule. [/quote:k9ajc1c8]
[color=darkblue:k9ajc1c8]I pray they do.[/color:k9ajc1c8]
[quote:k9ajc1c8]And since the Reformation Christians everywhere have taken more seriously not only the Scriptures but what the Scriptures teach us. [/quote:k9ajc1c8]
[color=darkblue:k9ajc1c8]I hope you pray this for both Catholics and Protestants.[/color:k9ajc1c8]
[quote:1hfg61zd]I have entered a number of Catholic Churches and I fail to find much spiritual life in them, not even from the priests. I can think of so many Protestant churches where I have seen so much life in the members that I cannot look to CAtholicism unless Christ himself showed me that only Catholicism works. Or, perhaps, unless I saw the same faith in a Catholic Church and the same fire. sigh… My congregation worships with their whole heart, soul, and mind and for me that is where I must also place my worship. If this church is to be called a “Protestant” church, then so be it. If I found this in a Catholic Church, then perhaps I would have no problem attending there.
Those who belong to the Church of Christ worship him in spirit and in truth.
And all God’s people said, amen. [/quote:1hfg61zd]
[color=darkblue:1hfg61zd]I see this as well. Often times it’s a measurement of fuzzy feelings, excitement of the believers, etc. I agree that some Catholic parishes are certainly lacking in this. But how exactly does this take away from the truth it teaches? If anything that would cause me to want to help the local parish, not separate from it. That’s probably one of the major differences I’ve endured as catholic now. When I attended protestant churches followers fed off of how much they were entertained, the powerful voice of the pastor, singing, dancing, etc. And that’s fine, we have Charismatic Catholic Churches as well. But going to Church isn’t about me feeling good or getting entertained or whatever. I’d go even if the priest was drop dead boring and all the members in the Church were asleep. Why? One reason of many, because I can receive my Lord in the Eucharist. Because the Church contains truth, even if it’s followers are not feeling it. [/color:1hfg61zd]
[quote:1hfg61zd]There is no historical evidence of any Pope receiving authority through Peter, ideologically it makes sense that the mass has chosen bishops through the work of the Holy Spirit over a couple hundred years but this is guess work that no council agreed upon.[/quote:1hfg61zd][color=darkblue:1hfg61zd]I beg to differ. What year do you want?
Listen to what St. Clement (97 AD) had to say,[/color:1hfg61zd]
[color=green:1hfg61zd]Our Apostles knew,” he says, “through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be dissension over the title of Bishop. In their knowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of and they went on to add an instruction that, if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office.”[/color:1hfg61zd][color=darkblue:1hfg61zd]St. Irenaeus of Lyons (115 AD):[/color:1hfg61zd]
[color=green:1hfg61zd]The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3:3:3).[/color:1hfg61zd]
Where Anacletus, Linus, and Eleutherus Popes? Isn’t this prior to the bishop of Rome taking on the title of being the Pope?
Many Protestant churches push for emotional response from congregations, but that is not what I meant by their fire, you seem to have experience in seeing the lack of enthusiasm for Christ and his Church in the Roman Catholic Church.
Is the Roman Catholic Church the only channel for the truth that comes from God? No. Is it “better”? Not neccessarily. if God judges the righteous on their faith and works, who can say. Is the RC a church traditionally passed down since the Early Church? Yes, of course, but it is not tradition that one passes into Paradise.
[quote:oldp8kwk]I’d go even if the priest was drop dead boring and all the members in the Church were asleep. Why? One reason of many, because I can receive my Lord in the Eucharist. Because the Church contains truth, even if it’s followers are not feeling it. [/quote:oldp8kwk]
If the heart of the church is asleep that is a very dangerous situation for them. The Eucharist is not only given in the RC, it can be received in any church. Many churches exemplifiy the truth of God, but the ones that are living in the truth, not asleep in it are the ones doing the will of the one who was sent to them.
Perhaps I am blowing this sleep thing too far, but it is serious. It infects the Body, and if the leader of the Church is asleep and his fire is nearly extinguished then who can say what rewards they will receive?
[quote:fr1mfjxg][color=darkblue:fr1mfjxg]I see this as well. Often times it’s a measurement of fuzzy feelings, excitement of the believers, etc. I agree that some Catholic parishes are certainly lacking in this. [u:fr1mfjxg][b:fr1mfjxg]But how exactly does this take away from the truth it teaches? If anything that would cause me to want to help the local parish, not separate from it.[/b:fr1mfjxg][/u:fr1mfjxg] That’s probably one of the major differences I’ve endured as catholic now. When I attended protestant churches followers fed off of how much they were entertained, the powerful voice of the pastor, singing, dancing, etc. And that’s fine, we have Charismatic Catholic Churches as well. [u:fr1mfjxg][b:fr1mfjxg]But going to Church isn’t about me feeling good or getting entertained or whatever. I’d go even if the priest was drop dead boring and all the members in the Church were asleep. Why? One reason of many, because I can receive my Lord in the Eucharist. Because the Church contains truth, even if it’s followers are not feeling it.[/b:fr1mfjxg][/u:fr1mfjxg] [/color:fr1mfjxg][/quote:fr1mfjxg]
That is so true, brother! That is why the Catholic Church is true. It’s not about entertainment, it’s about truth! God bless you!
” title=”Very Happy” />[quote:fr1mfjxg][u:fr1mfjxg][b:fr1mfjxg]It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3:3:3).[/b:fr1mfjxg][/u:fr1mfjxg][/quote:fr1mfjxg]
Let those who have ears hear, and those who have eyes read, and those who are gifted with reason, reason! This enlightning record that Victor posted is from St. Irenaeus, one of the Church Fathers and Saints, all way back in the 2nd Century AD.
"Te Deum":3ui6tj81 wrote:The Church of Christ is 2000 years old, tracing her origins to Peter and the Apostles in an unbreaking apostolic succession. It is the Catholic Church.[/quote:3ui6tj81]
I find this statement true and false at the same time. Let me explain:[quote:3ui6tj81][u:3ui6tj81][b:3ui6tj81]The Babylonian Captivity[/b:3ui6tj81].[/u:3ui6tj81]
The new pope was a French bishop who took the name Clement V. Rather than residing in Rome, he was induced to stay in the city of Avignon in what is now southen France. This was the first time since St. Peter that the head of the church had not resided in the Holy City of Christendom, and to make matters worse, Clement’s successors stayed in Avignon as well. The Babylonian Captivity, as the popes’ stay in Avignon came to be called, created a great scandal. Everyone except the French viewed the popes as captives of the French crown and unworthy to lead the universal church or decide questions of international justice.
In 1377 of of Clement’s papal successors finally returned to Rome but died very soon thereafter. In the ensuing election, great pressure was put on the attending bishops to elect an Italian, and one was duly elected, who took the name Urban VI. Urban was a well-intentioned reformer, but he went about his business in such an arrogant fashion that he had alienated all his fellow bishops within weeks after the election. they therefore proceeded to declare his election invalid because of the pressures put on them and elected another Frenchman, who took the name Clement VII. He immediately returned to Avignon and took up residence once more under the benevolent eye of the French king. The bullheaded Urban refused to step down. There were thus two popes and doubt as to which one was the legitimate one.[/quote:3ui6tj81]
This was taken out of a history book I borrowed called World Civilizations (comprehensive volume 2nd edition.)So at one point the Catholic Church had two popes residing in France and in Rome. There are some other accounts that say that there where three popes at one time.
I do not mean to say that neither were legitimate or illegitimate but it’s hard to tell which is which.
Once again it comes down to who is telling the story. There are any number of anti-catholics who claim that there where two or three Popes at the same time. While the Catholic Church maintains that there can only be one Pope at a time. As a matter of fact there are some ten or twenty men who claim to be Pope today. Over the past 35 years there have been quite a few who made the claim. The fact remains even if more than one man claims to be Pope, there can only be one legitimate Pope.
Today if you do a web search for Pope Pius XIII, or Pope Michael I you will see two men who claim to be Pope, and claim that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are all false Popes, that they are the only Pope. Well history, and common sense prove they are both wrong. They both have followers. They both have issued “Papal Proclamations” but that does not make them Popes.
The times that you (James) have mentioned, and that the source you posted speak of where times of great upheaval, however no matter how many claims that there where more than one Pope at any one time are made, it just can’t happen, any more than there can be more than one president of the United States. You can have one true president, and false claimants to the office. In England there is only one Monarch at a time, there can be pretenders to the throne, who claim to be Monarch.
I do believe this is quite a confusing time. However, there must be one pope. What I ment was it would be pretty hard to see which pope is the true pope.
” title=”Wink” />
nice hint (?) lol
” title=”Very Happy” />- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.