Skip to comments.A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church
Posted on 07/31/2007 4:19:37 PM PDT by NYer
|Name of church||Founder||When||Where|
|Episcopalian||King Henry VIII||1534||England|
|Adventist||William Miller||1831||New York|
|Christian Scientist||Mary Baker Eddy||1879||Massachusetts|
Parsing is a fine Tradition!
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 6: Angels and Devils
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 7: Human Beings and the Purpose of Life
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 8: Sanctifying Grace
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 9: Heaven
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 10: Mortal and Venial Sin
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 11: Hell
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 12: Purgatory
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 13: Original Sin
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 14: Jesus Christ, Our Savior
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 15: Jesus Christ, True God and True Man
Oh, aren’t we touchy!
I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
Yes, I see.
...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major—
Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
I am your king!
Well, I didn’t vote for you.
You don’t vote for kings.
Well, how did you become King, then?
The Lady of the Lake,...
...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
That is why I am your king!
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Well, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ‘cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
I mean, if I went ‘round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Shut up, will you? Shut up!
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?
Why are they not accurate facts?
I have seen other sources that prove these dates.
And those churches were set up by whom? Come on, you know the answer!!!!
That’s exactly WHY Christ came into the world: to show us what God’s nature is. The devil can masquerade as an angel of light and, without a solid reference of what is holy, we can be deceived. Christ is our TOUCHSTONE, to enable us to discern evil from Good. With That Touchstone, and the Holy Spirit, anyone can understand God’s Will; we don’t need an earthly authority.
But we must be diligent students of the Master, merely reading the Bible in bits and pieces won't hack it; the world is full of those who quote Christ out of context!
As to the episcopagans (that’s kinda catchy), perhaps excommunicated is the wrong word; encouraged to repent, and unwelcome/disinvited to share in the Anglican community conferences and such. In short, they’re not Anglican anymore.
I cant believe how good Christian men and women can STILL be so acrimonious with each other! This argument is about trivial stuff! Regardless of which side of this debate you are on, it gives you no profit. Our Master is surely not pleased.
I encourage you all to prayerfully read the third chapter of Pauls first letter to the Corinthians, in its entirety.
Maybe you misinterpreted. I don’t consider Catholicism to be entirely separate from Christianity, but Catholics can define Catholicism for themselves, including any statements of superiority. There are several Protestant denominations that are the same way.
The Church was founded by Jesus, and is guided by Him. Indeed, He identifies Himself with the Church (Acts 9:4-5). It is His Mystical Body, and it cannot err in doctrine or moral teaching, in spite of the sins, failings and cowardice of its individual members.
Yes. That would be the one!
You show signs of Donatism, a heresy condemned all the way back in 325 at the Council of Nicea. To wit: if a member of the Church isn’t “sinless,” then he is not a member. You seem to expect the same sinlessness that Donatus and his followers erroneously demanded.
But the Church is comprised of sinners and, indeed, exists as a means of cleansing them from their sins. Consider that, in Matthew 13:24-30, the Church is clearly shown by Christ Himself to be comprised of both the “wheat” and the “tares.” Do not take scandal because individual members are sometimes not sufficiently holy for your liking. Remember, it is as sinful to take scandal as it is to give scandal (Matthew 18:5-7).
I think you should have copied the rest of the statement which was “(Quoting the Bible to prove its own authenticity really proves nothing.)”
What your answer is composed of, is “I believe it.”
He says, “How do you know it’s true?”
You say, “It says it’s true.”
Presumably, if somebody wrote it as a lie, the author would also say, “This is true.”
The point you apparently are missing is this: If you read the Bible from cover to cover, it is an amazing story. Matter of fact, one could say it’s an unbelievable story, as some atheists do say. An unseen God creates the world (as opposed to what atheist “scientists” say), He created one man and one woman, who’s children are good and bad, and destroys the world when they get too bad, with a flood. He guided certain men and picked one insignificant tribe to call His People, and when they disobeyed Him, were sold into slavery, and rescued by a series of unbelievable miracles, and told them He was coming in person. Often, He sends beings with no physical bodies to interact with these men. He had his Only Begotten Son, born of a virgin (talk about unbelievable!), and came to suffer a horrible death, just to make up for the first man and woman eating an apple. And He picked 12 followers, one of which was a traitor, and founded what He called His Church and told them, He would be with them til the end of the world.
If I just fell off the turnip truck, I wouldn’t believe the story-it would be great fiction. Fortunately, for me, that’s not how it happened. When He was here, He founded a Church, and told everybody to listen to His Church. Not read His book, mind you, because there was no book. Matter of fact, there was no book for another 400 years, when it was assembled by the bishops of the Catholic Church, which Christ founded, in the year 399 AD, and was approved infallibly by the pope. The Catholic Church told all men of the world that that collection of books (the canon of the Bible) was the inerrant Word of God. That’s the only reason I have to believe the Bible is true. Because it was declared so by the Catholic Church.
What wiley was asking you is this: If you deny Christ founded the One True Church, the Catholic Church, why do you believe in the Bible, and why would you claim it is the Word of God, when the Bible is an official document of the Church you deny? Further, how can the Bible be a superior "...final authority of Christ's truth,..." when the only reason the Bible exists, is because the Catholic Church authored and declared it to be true by It's (the Church's)authority?-Glenn
As to the Historical time line, it is worse than childlike. I'll grab a few and let me know, if you prefer some others: 1. Episcopalian King Henry VIII 1534 England
Clearly the good Fr Cogan is American and a bit out of touch with the difference between ECUSA (erm TEC now) and the rest of the Anglican Communion (not to mention the RC doctrine of consantiguity at the time).
On a side note, please don't make me search out the RC Priest in the Barney costume or his "stand up" bishop to dispel the tit-for-tat that this line normally begins. The Magisterium of Rome is with His Holiness Benedict XVI. The Canon of St Vincent best describes the failed via-media of Anglicanism
Next, the martyrdom of St Alban and the councils of Arles (314), and Ariminum (359) are not fictional.
2. To put the Presbyterian as spawning from John Knox without any mention of Calvinist thought is as dumb as making Henry VIII some religious reformer starting a church.
3. Similarly, but perhaps more egregious due to martyrs, is to put the Baptists under John Smith with no mention of the Anabaptists.
4. John Wesley (an Anglican to his dieing breath), started a prayer group, not a church.
5. 7th day Adventists and Christian Scientists hardly qualify as "Protestant churches" as they were in no way seeking to reform the corrupt visible church.
**5. 7th day Adventists and Christian Scientists hardly qualify as “Protestant churches” as they were in no way seeking to reform the corrupt visible church.**
Agree with you here. Would not have put them on the list, myself.
I am staggered by the sheer volume of hard labor that would be necessary in order to stripmine all of the historical ignorance out of this assertion!
If I can roll my eyes back down to the front again, I will try to navigate my way to bed. How tiring willfull blindness is sometimes! It is amazing to me that, in the face of similar sentiments, Jesus is recorded as having said only once: “O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?” (Matthew 17:17) Indeed, the forbearance of God is sometimes necessary to wade though some of these FR religion threads! Since I certainly have no such degree of forbearance, and my eyes have, in fact, rolled back to the front, I bid you a good night.
I once heard it put succinctly by a convert from the Nazarenes:
“I realized that Jesus came to found a Church, not publish a book.”
Unfortunately, the institution itself has become the Devil’s tool, and has been for the last millenium. I will pray for you. Early on in my Christian life I was a catechumen in the RCIA and was fortunately delivered by Evangelicals, who told me, yes, indeed, it was not necessary to pray to “our mother, the earth,” as I was instructed to do by a nun, backed up by a priest. The Roman church is not just full of sinners. It IS sin, with a few lonely Christians here and there trying to redeem it, for the sake of a missed latin ritual.
The church was made for man, not man for the church. He didn’t come to found a church, for the sake of founding a church. He came to save sinners, not preserve ritual.
My, my. How Pelagius is this view but it's not surprising.
He established a church. "The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
Let's read this in context.
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on i the world, received up into glory.
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the later times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth...
Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
It should be noted that in the bible, the word "rock" is not capitalized.
That would be our Lord, Jesus Christ.
"Whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father Who is in Heaven. And I say to thee: Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:16-18)
So the word of God then was not inspired (by God)...
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
So Jesus DID NOT tell John to write this verse???
I got news for ya...If you don't have the written words of God, you don't have a Christian religion...
I don't what god you guys worship...Likely the same Allah that the muzlims worship...But many of us out here worship the God of the Bible...
The wisest among us will simply say, "There they go again."
Context. They did not pass down anything to Matthias, they were looking for men whom had been taught by Christ while He was here.
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us. ....
Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:2),
Where are the apostles at in this, looks like the HS's work to me. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Timothy, Silas, Sylvanus, Titus, Luke, Mark (Acts 17:14
????, nothing whatsoever to do with anyone receiving authority.
And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timothy abode there still.
2 Corinthians 1:19
Are you saying that just because Paul said that Silvanus and Timothy preached is proof that the apostles passed down their authority,
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not yea and nay but in him was yea.
No time to look up the others, no sense in it anyway. I see why this lesson does not include what the Scripture actually says....be interesting to know how many take the time to look up what the Scripture really says, and just doesn't take it on faith that the Catholic Church is quoting sensibly.
Every pope since the first one, Constantine, has erred in doctrine...Biblical doctrine that is...But since God did not inspire the bible, you folks must have your own doctrine...
That's a keeper.
Yes, because She alone has the authority of Jesus to rule and to teach. To disobey the Catholic Church knowingly is just as much a sin as to disobey Jesus Christ or His Apostles.
Not even an out of context scripture for this, I see.
Constantine was a Pope? Odd, that's not what the history books tell us.
Wait a second, you're accusing the same Church whose Ecumenical Councils authenticated the books of the New Testament as not having the "written words of God?" I'm hoping you will realize how really silly that suggestion is.
Yes and no ;-) It depends on the diocese and the materials chosen. It also depends on the parents. The Catholic Church is sacramental. Parents show up to have their children baptized and sometimes don't return until the child is ready for First Communion (age 8). They then resurface for the Sacrament of Confirmation, though I don't know of any Catholic Church that will administer the Sacraments without parent and child preparation ... i.e. religious education.
The best known and most comprehensive Catechism is the
A simply amazing jump from "The Apostles" to "The Catholic Church". Forget the poo-pooing of their validity (for now), they are more talking points than catechism.
Thank you for this opportunity to address your concern with the Baltimore Catechism, linked above.
Do "cradle catholics" get better catechism at a later point?
For those who are interested, it doesn't get much better than
And the network she founded. EWTN
Where is the word "Catholic" in this verse??? Where is the word: "Rome" or "Roman" or "Roman Catholic"??? It takes a vivid and unlearned imagination that defies logic and history to continue to quote this verse as if it is the foundation of the RCC especially when even Catholic scholars admit that there is no evidence for Peter's mythical sojourn to Rome.
Source? Are these "progressive" Catholic scholars?
Were the Israelites abandoned by God during their enforced 40-year wandering for infidelity, or was that wandering merely a punishment or winnowing of a people still chosen by God? Is it possible that the same sort of 40-year wandering in theological silliness has been going on in the developed West to the same end? After all, this pope seems determined that 40 years is long enough, and the time has come to put a stop to the foolishness. The infidelity to authentic church teching is about to come to an abrupt end. The winnowing here will have its effect, just as it did for the Israelites.
It’s unfortunate that you were involved in what sounds like a pretty bogus RCIA program, run by entrenched allies of the Enemy. But they are being rooted out in due course. All along, though, the official teaching of the Church has not changed, and it was always not too hard to find. Thinking that Catholicism is *actually* an earth goddess religion might be excusable given your RCIA experience, but surely you must have known that, had you dug deeper on your own initiative, instead of taking immediate scandal, you would have found out what the Church really is and what it stands for. You can certainly glean this information from the many well-catechized Catholics on this very forum. Better days are already at hand. I will pray for you, too.
And here's some 'good news' for you, as well. Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord's body. But Catholics do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics also believe that God's Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.
What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
Well, it's not quite the level that Eucharistic adoration is at, but still, the wider point is true.
Source? Are these "progressive" Catholic scholars?
Let's call them honest Catholic scholars and start here:
...we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
If you possess no precise details, then how with a clear conscience does your magisterium continue to propagate the legend of Peter in Rome to the gullible congregants who just blindly drink it up without asking questions.
Unfortunately, “digging deeper” only revealed how deeply entrenched things like the Marian heresy are in the Roman church, and how simple Christ’s teachings really are: “wherever two or three are gathered”
Where’s the link?
Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.
What a shabby misquoting job you've done!
Here's the link you didn't want to provide:
Forgot to ping you to 92.
Prepare to laugh out loud.
Another point worth noting is that the article was written in 1911, before the excavations below St. Peter’s Basilica (which occurred in 1953).
How is it possible to teach something as fact to people when you have no details to verify it as fact??? Here is a statement from a Catholic author that is closer to the truth regarding the legend of Peter in Rome:
"All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus' account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not by one, Peter and Paul not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year AD 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the 'trophies' of the Apostles, their tombs, or cenotaphs, Peter's on the Vatican Hill, and Paul's on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast. Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter's life and death in Rome--his struggles with the magician and father of heresy, Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecution in Rome, a flight from which he was turned back by a reproachful vision of Christ (the 'Quo Vadis' legend), and finally his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus in the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church--Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, where ever we turn, the solid outlines of the petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve...
" Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter's death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single 'successor'. There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament [Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6).
No PRECISE details.
Love the Church and know it is the true Church, but would it be more appropriate to say She is the only fully true Church or the only completely true Church? That is a formulation which would acknowledge implicitly that other Churches may have parts of Her truth.
Don’t know. Hope a theologian could answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.