For whatever it's worth, I've been told by many that I'm very intelligent, perceptive and a critical thinker. You say something, I research it, and then I report my findings. That's how I operate. Naturally people get perturbed when my findings don't back up their claims and or concepts
I don't mind the challenges. And critical thinking is always the best route. Now, with research one will still run into plenty of pop mythology mixed with truth, half-truths, and falsehoods regarding Catholicism as its been a big target for centuries, not
always undeserved. Where I get perturbed, however, is not with straight answers but with answers that come across more as diversions, consciously made or not. Answers that haven't really addressed the question IOW.
According to my research there are over twenty particular churches practicing over 20 different rites under the umbrella of Catholicism.
You're not comparing apples with apples. Your research then should've told you that those rites are nothing more than churches in communion with and under the authority of Rome;
they're still Catholic Churches with the Roman bishop, the pope, as their head. They hold to the same catechism-holding a unified body of beliefs IOW. Their main differences are strictly
non-dogmatic, involving liturgies and practices that have evolved within differing cultures. They call these different "rites".
It seems to me that you don't speak of the Church as if it's the entire Body of Christ. But rather as if it's limited to the specific organization that is governed by the Vatican. The Vatican is the city state in Rome ruled by the pope that is the center of the Roman Catholic Church. You can also use the Vatican to refer to the pope or his officials.
The Catholic Church recognizes truth in those denominations that promote the basics of Christianity correctly, even if the lack of unity between us all is considered to be a wound, and ultimately not consistent with God's highest desire for His Church. But Protestant denominations resulted form protesting against and leaving the Catholic church and the CC stills sees them as "separated brethren" and still part of the one larger Church regardless of whether or not they agree- or love, hate, or otherwise ignore the CC. The differences in beliefs between the denominations themselves and with the CC are rightly called "wounds to unity", and the Catholic Church teaches that the "fullness of truth" resides within Catholic teachings. But the Church also teaches:
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
It seems to me that they originally simply eliminated a lot of the extrabiblical stuff that was added in from the 4th to at least the 13th century. I think what really changed things regarding the masses, was everyone finally having full access to Scripture.
Access to Scripture mainly came about due to the printing press and increasing literacy. And the result, ultimately, was a wide range of differing beliefs, based on Scripture alone. Some basics that were agreed upon didn't produce the predicted fruit. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura proved itself invalid despite best desires and intentions, and the doctrine of Sola Fide works sorta kinda ok when qualified, while the rest of the Solas are consistent with Christian truth.
It seems to me that they originally simply eliminated a lot of the extrabiblical stuff that was added in from the 4th to at least the 13th century. I think what really changed things regarding the masses, was everyone finally having full access to Scripture.
If it was only peripheral stuff, or reforming abuses done by churchmen (which was Luther's original objection), that would be one thing. The baby got thrown out, however, when
doctrinal changes were thought appropriate. This very matter of justification-what it takes and means to be right in the eyes of God-was central to the Reformation-and became the main focus of the Church's attention as she addressed the matter at the Council of Trent.
1 John is specifically written to know that you are currently saved.
Ok, so you'd be insisting that everyone who's ever heard or read those words down through the centuries and applied them to themselves was/is necessarily saved. Doubt it. That probably wasn't even true for every one of the first audience they were addressed to. Much of that language is encouragement and hyperbole, which is also balanced, in Scripture, with warnings, admonishments, and instruction. We can have a decent idea, a strong while guarded assurance, that we're a child of God, based on His promises and evidence of fruit in our lives. We just can't have 100% perfect certainty which is considered to be rash or vain confidence. That kind of certainty is
His province
.
Jesus Christ coined the term "born again". And He along with His apostles are the ones who originated the concepts of being saved and the elect etc. 1 John is specifically written to know that you are currently saved.
It's not the term but the application and overuse of it. And the insistence that I'm "there" and often that it's a permanent state of being for me, maybe even if I only
once believed in the past depending on the variation.
I'll ask you the same question I think Bishop Ware should have been asked. If you died within the next few seconds, do you think you would you end up in heaven? Yes, no, maybe, not sure, hope so but don't know?
I'd answer probably, not totally sure. Again, I'd leave that one up to God-at the end of the day it's a matter of what
He thinks.
