Confused which is the true church

[W2L]

I have said enough. Peace folks.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I have said enough. Peace folks.

You are chit chatty..



I'm just teasing - and that with love..

 

[Hazelelponi]

 

[Albion]

There can only be one church that Christ established, and it cannot be divided in its beliefs. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura actually often causes such divisions, and significant ones.

Before Sola Scriptura was an issue, the Roman Church, Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Albigensians, Lollards, Hussites, and others had already rent the unity of the church.

And the period when there were three popes contending against each other to be the last one standing came prior to the Protestant Reformation also.

In short, "Sola Scriptura caused the disunity" is a favorite line of militant Catholics and sounds persuasive to them, but the facts are to the contrary.

 

[W2L]

You are chit chatty..



I'm just teasing - and that with love..

You seem very nice. Thank you for that.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You seem very nice. Thank you for that.

Your welcome.. thank you for the compliment. .

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

While true, this is a very dangerous pastoral idea.

Scripture does NOT speak for itself. There are many translations and interpretations of the same passages. Even the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words meant different things in the cultures of the time. [for example, one might review the idea of the "manger"].

The teachings of the Church, including interpretation of newer and better translations are part of the Church's Tradition. Many (since the 1850's) are willing to throw out Tradition each generation, and rely on our own individual interpretations. And when I discuss the Tradition of the Church, I include all the churches that believe in the very idea of Church (as well as church) and the sacraments (sometimes only 2).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Question: If Scripture does not speak from a position of authority, then how exactly are you a believer in what it says?
That would lead an observer, like myself, to note that in some faiths traditions and sacraments, as you mentioned, have superseded the Scriptures themselves which is ridiculous to say the least.

It is said in scriptures, there is only one mediator between man and God and that is the man Jesus Christ. Given that he is the Word made flesh, the only mediator between man and God is the Word itself. This idea that has been described as "tradition" [in your own words] that "things added to the scriptures" have the same authority is blatantly false in every sense. Which the Word itself rebukes.

These are not my own ideas, interpretations, nor traditions. These are scriptures themselves. If need be I will go back and add chapter / verse for clarification, so you can look it up.
I'm not in this to win it. I just wanted to clarify a few things for the sake of truth.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I think the same I know what I have experienced when I accepted Jesus to my life and I know the word of God is true and I don't think it's something about the church or where we pray ,but relationship with him is the most important.

Albeit, you have spoken true, it is also important to have a community of believers that you belong to. This is to help others and you when and if you fall, there will be someone to pick you up. That is the idea of the body is to fit together, to work as one.

 

[fhansen]

Sure, its your story tell it how you want.

My story is simply that a historical visible church, established by Christ and in possession of truths and teachings distinguishable from other, false teachings by false teachers already present at the time, existed and continues to exist as a necessity. Find that church, wherever it may be found.

 

[fhansen]

Before Sola Scriptura was an issue, the Roman Church, Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Albigensians, Lollards, Hussites, and others had already rent the unity of the church.

And the period when there were three popes contending against each other to be the last one standing came prior to the Protestant Reformation also.

In short, "Sola Scriptura caused the disunity" is a favorite line of militant Catholics and sounds persuasive to them, but the facts are to the contrary.

Not "Sola Scriptura caused the disunity" but rather, "Sola Scriptura causes disunity". Aside from that anytime two or more are gathered, disunity is bound to occur.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Before Sola Scriptura was an issue, the Roman Church, Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Albigensians, Lollards, Hussites, and others had already rent the unity of the church.

And the period when there were three popes contending against each other to be the last one standing came prior to the Protestant Reformation also.

In short, "Sola Scriptura caused the disunity" is a favorite line of militant Catholics and sounds persuasive to them, but the facts are to the contrary.

Indeed,

Maurice W. Sheehan: In this lecture I want to talk about the causes of the Reformation. This is a rather standard approach to the Reformation because it is admitted by all that the Reformation did not just happen or come like a bolt from the blue...Part of the tragedy of the Reformation is that the Church before 1517 was unable to reform itself or to set in motion events or changes that would have led to a reform in the Church that would have satisfied its members and really affected change....

It is possible to go back deep into the Middle Ages when enumerating or toting up the causes of the Reformation. I would like to start simply with the fourteenth century....

The first thing to note is that in the fourteenth century there was a period of approximately seventy years, from 1309 to 1377, when the pope was not living or residing in Rome...In the midst of the pope living outside of the Italian peninsula, outside of Rome, there occurred one of those events in European history that mark an age forever, and that was the infamous Black Death...Not too long after the Black Death there occurred something that was far worse than the popes living in Avignon... they proceeded to elect a counter-pope in 1378 to the pope who was then living in Rome. This counter-pope was French. He went back to Avignon. The man already resident now in Rome stayed in Rome, and Christendom now had the spectacle of not one pope living where he shouldn't have been, but of two popes each claiming to be the rightful pope, one living in Avignon, the other in Rome...

And if we go to the clergy, to what we can call the lower clergy or the ordinary priests, we can say that one vice that many of them had was immorality. Many of them had women that they kept in their rectories by whom they had children, so they had families to support. — Maurice W. Sheehan, O.F.M. Cap., Lecture 2: Prelude-Causes, Attempts at Reform to 1537; International Catholic University http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01802.htm

And as some guy named Ratzinger explained,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. ​

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2...e-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)​

Yet, 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources )

Moreover,. underneath the facade of RC unity based on official paper and perfunctory professions, Catholicism is rife with divisions, and on the practical level where it counts, Bible Christians for a long time have attested to greater unity in core beliefs .

Furthermore, the divisions in Catholicism would be more manifest if they were were as doctrinally committed as Bible Christians tend to be.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

My story is simply that a historical visible church, established by Christ and in possession of truths and teachings distinguishable from other, false teachings by false teachers already present at the time, existed and continues to exist as a necessity. Find that church, wherever it may be found.

Actually, Catholicism is distinguishable by teachings not manifest and contrary to what the most ancient and only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) attests.

 

[fhansen]

Actually, Catholicism is distinguishable by teachings not manifest and contrary to what the most ancient and only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) attests.

Well, that's your personal opinion anyway. The truth is that non-Catholics often disagree substantially on what that "most ancient and only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record" means to say. And my point is that the church Christ established is singular and visible, unified in basic beliefs, traceable to the beginning of the faith, and definitely not based on Scripture alone as if someone could pick up the bible centuries after the church compiled it and fully and accurately come to know what Christianity is all about without the witness of and input from the historical church that came before him. And that's regardless of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church happens to fulfill that definition of church as described above.

And the unified body of beliefs of the RCC are easily enough found in its Catechism BTW.

 

[Albion]

Not "Sola Scriptura caused the disunity" but rather, "Sola Scriptura causes disunity". Aside from that anytime two or more are gathered, disunity is bound to occur.

If you mean that whenever two or more people gather (and there is some issue to consider) there is bound to be disunity, I would agree. But if so, this familiar charge about Sola Scriptura is invalid. The churches which follow Sacred Tradition instead are equally liable to disunity, both internally and externally (as I was pointing out in my previous post).

 

[Albion]

...as if someone could pick up the bible centuries after the church compiled it and fully and accurately come to know what Christianity is all about without the witness of and input from the historical church that came before him..

I see your point about some individual picking up a copy of the Bible (perhaps on a desert island where it has washed ashore, if we want to flesh out this hypothetical event) and then be on his own to try to understand it.

But this has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

 

[Roseonathorn]

I believe the church we frequently visit might at some point become so much of a home that it feels a bit boring and we find all sorts of faults in it, while a unknown church, well, lets say, we have still not found the flaws. It is very much like a marriage where the man goes to a beach oogling at the women sunbathing, wishing He had them or that His wife was like them, and His wife has men that are ready to die for Her at the same time, and really not until You have lived over a decade with someone You know all their bad habits and good sides. It is of course easy to forget the good and get irritated on the bad.

 

[fhansen]

If you mean that whenever two or more people gather (and there is some issue to consider) there is bound to be disunity, I would agree. But if so, this familiar charge about Sola Scriptura is invalid. The churches which follow Sacred Tradition instead are equally liable to disunity, both internally and externally (as I was pointing out in my previous post).

But really, one has to acknowledge that internal disunity means nothing, if by that we mean disagreement among members. That's occurred since day one. But the Church has always resolved these matters and then come to speak as one voice from one entity. A catechism is such a voice or statement.

 

[Albion]

But really, one has to acknowledge that internal disunity means nothing, if by that we mean disagreement among members. That's ocurred since day one.

Okay

But the Church has always resolved these matters and then come to speak as one voice from one entity. A catechism is such a voice or statement.

Okay again, but many different denominations do that.

 

[redleghunter]

Just wanted to point out this is a Christian advice thread. All responses should be going to the OP Ovis and we should not be debating one another.

 

[Athanasius377]

I have been born again and accepted Jesus Christ to my life 6 years ago. I am Catholic btw. Since that time while reading bible I found some contradictions with catholic teachings or confusion. I found that for me it's no difference in what church I am as I think The most important thing is our relationship with Jesus ,but not what church we attend. But also when I start reading bible I get confused with Catholic Church and i feel bad not knowing where is true anymore. It makes me feel like I don't belong neither in Catholic or other churches. I been studying in Vatican theology for a year,but still haven't mad me more clear although it does tract a catholic church as being one of the first and oldest churches ,but trough history there was some bad times where some teachings might changed..Where is the truth some one please help.

There are serious issues with the Roman Church to be sure but I would advise against the temptation of being a Lone Ranger christian as the Bible knows nothing of a believer of this sort. I am a confessional Lutheran and of course I will recommend the same church. I believe the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Lithuania may fit the bill. I know they are part of a communion that I am not all that familiar with though they have declared themselves in communion the my church body. If your are curious read the Augsburg confession as an introduction to what we believe Scripture teaches.

All I can say is that I will pray for you and others like you in your country. And I would agree that it is a problem when one needs to explain whole sections of scripture to fit a tradition no matter how ancient. Just make sure that you still attend a church as church is not a building rather it where God's people to gather to hear God's Word and receive His Sacraments. Life is hard, you NEED Jesus!

God Bless,