Replies

You have completely dodged my point. My point wasn't the validity of the Catholic church, it was merely that Christianity isn't exclusive to Catholicism. I am a devout Christian though I hold no direct allegiance to any particular denomination. I have served in several different churches of several different denominations, and I have yet to find the church that lines up 100% with the word of God. The scriptures instead state that each person should seek out their own salvation with fear and trembling. The scriptures are also very clear, "no man comes unto the father accept through the son" there is no place in the scriptures commanding us to pray to any man dead or alive accept for Christ himself. Also we were commanded to call no man father. I myself am not one of those who believe that Catholicism is leading people to hell, but I do personally disagree with some of the teachings of Catholicism, and I do not believe that they hold exclusive rights to Christ.

"You have completely dodged my point. My point wasn't the validity of the Catholic church, it was merely that Christianity isn't exclusive to Catholicism."

I agree wholeheartedly.

"I myself am not one of those who believe that Catholicism is leading people to hell, but I do personally disagree with some of the teachings of Catholicism, and I do not believe that they hold exclusive rights to Christ."

Being Orthodox myself and not a Roman Catholic, I agree with this too.

My point is that neither the NT nor the OT are the end all of theological inquiry when you seek to determine what The Church is. You need to see what The Church was that established what the canon of scripture would be (leave aside later Protestant amendments). By the time of the establishment of the canon of the NT at the end of the fourth century, the ecclesisastical structure which we see clearly in Orthodox ecclesiology today (assume some sort of real, exercisable papal primacy)had been in existence since the middle to late 2nd century (the idea of The Church being fully present in a single diocese composed of a bishop surrounded by his clergy and laity centered on the Eucharist, of course, is from the first decade of the 2nd century, around 105). As I said earlier, it was the hierarchs of this liturgical and hierarchial Church which were inspired by the Holy Spirit to discern the proper canon of the NT. Consequently, unless one knows and understands what the Church of those times believed, one is in no position to properly understand why any given book was included in the canon of the NT because the measuring stick which the hierarchs used to determine canonicity was "what the Church always and everywhere believed".

Now one could, I suppose, make arguments based in that knowledge and understanding of early Church beliefs and praxis, that The Church in the West or The East departed from those beliefs, but the reference point would have to be "what the Church always and everywhere believed", which is comprehensive in this regard, and not the scriptures which are not comprehensive in that manner or at least not so specifically comprehensive. Let me give you an example. The Eucharistic theology of The Church is firmly rooted in scripture, even, for us Orthodox and Latins, quite specifically so. We believe in the "Real Presence". Most Protestants don't, asserting that scripture isn't clear. But Holy Tradition, what the Church always and everywhere believed, at the time of the establishment of the canon of the NT was quite clear about the truth of the dogma of the Real Presence.

"You have completely dodged my point."

Oh, I don't think so. Your point is well taken, but its basis in scripture on the theory that it can't be right because it isn't there simply doesn;t hold up. Its also the problem with your statement that you have served in several different ecclesial communities but have yet to find one that lines up 100% with "the word of God".

Hello Whispering out Loud,

It's good you've voiced some of your concerns about Catholicism. Your concerns are understandable, and in fact, many people share similar concerns to the ones you have mentioned. If I might comment on a few of them:

"My point wasn't the validity of the Catholic church, it was merely that Christianity isn't exclusive to Catholicism."

Reading through your posts, there appears to be more than just this one point, as you seem to be offering criticisms of the Catholic Church on number of points that are of concern to you.

To begin, Whispering Out Loud, the Catholic Church recognizes all validly Baptized persons as Christians.

"The scriptures instead state that each person should seek out their salvation with fear and trembling."

There's no "instead" in that Scripture. Neither is there a seek--the Scripture says work. Christ founded one Church and entrusted it to His Apostles, who then taught members of the Church to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, as the Church continues to teach to this day.

" The scriptures are also very clear, "no man comes unto the father accept through the son"

Certainly, we're in complete agreement on that.

"There is no place in the scriptures commanding us to pray to any man dead or alive accept for Christ himself."

Yes and No. You're right that there's no place in Scripture commanding us to pray to any man. Neither is there anywhere in Scripture, however, where we are commanded to pray to Christ either, so that argument cuts both ways.

However, St Paul tells us:

"Bretheren, pray for us."; (1 Thessalonians 5:25)

Here we see the Apostle requesting the prayers of Christians, which is what those of the Catholic faith are doing when they ask Saints in Heaven and living Christians here on earth to pray for them.

Also he tells us:

"To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfill every good resolve and work of faith by his power," (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12)

Here we see the Apostle praying for us. Perhaps you feel that "always" praying for us ended with the death of St. Paul and his coworkers, but the Scripture does not say one way or the other.

In fact, in the Revelation of John, chapter 8, we see the intercessions of the Saints in Heaven being offered to the Almighty as incense in the Divine Worship.

As St. James tells us:

"Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. (James 5:16)

The prayer of the righteous man has great power, hence we ask the saints, who are righteous, to pray to God for us sinners.

" Also we were commanded to call no man father."

Well, what do you call your dad? Father's day? The founding Fathers??

I think you will find hundreds of Scriptures in the New Testament that refer to men as Father.

For example, St Paul refers to Father Abraham as the father of all who believe in the Letter to the Romans. (God Himself says he will make Abraham the father of many nations, and Jesus, used the title "Father Abraham" in one of his parables. Beyond that, St. Paul also refers to members of the Church as his fathers. Further he said:

"For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (1Co 4:15)

It is in this sense that the Catholic Church uses the term "Father", that is, it refers to spiritual fatherhood. As I understand Christ's statement, "call no man your father, for you have one Father in Heaven," it's Semitic hyperbole. The meaning, as I understand it, is that God is infinitely more of a Father to us than our own earthly fathers.

"I myself am not one of those who believe that Catholicism is leading people to hell,..."

Thank you, I appreciate your saying that.

"..but I do personally disagree with some of the teachings of Catholicism,"

I understand where you're coming from. If you agreed with all the teachings of the Catholicism, presumably you would be a Catholic. It often seems to be the case, however, that many people disagree not with the actual Catholic Faith, but rather with what they mistakenly believe to be the teachings of the Catholic Church.

"..and I do not believe that they hold exclusive rights to Christ."

It's not a question of the the Church holding exclusive rights to Christ, it's that Christ possesses the Church. He founded the Church for the salvation of souls, he specifically refers to the Church as my Church in Matthew 16:18. The Church is the ordinary means through which men come into contact with the teachings of Christ, and the Holy Sacraments, such as the Lord's Supper. Christ himself has promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. (Please not that it's a bit of a stretch to understand the Church in this reference as only a collection of individual in this Scripture, separated from leadership and apostolic doctrine, as what would Christ then be promising? Elsewhere, Scripture tells us that there is only one God and one Faith.

"I have served in several different churches of several different denominations, and I have yet to find the church that lines up 100% with the word of God."

It sounds like you are a very active Christian who places importance on contributing to his community. Given that you have found things wrong with a number of different ecclesial traditions, you might want to consider looking into Orthodox or Roman Catholicism. Both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are founded upon the Apostolic faith, and I believe you will find both to be completely consistent with Scripture.