Tell me why your apostolic church is the True Communion.

[JasonV]

... present the case for the Communion of their Church being the Way. Keep in mind, I'm speaking of the Way of Fullness. I know the Catholic Church, in particular, believes other Communions to be valid, albeit imperfect.

My church does not believe there is only one that has what you are calling the "way of fullness". Course, theology is second to Apostolicity, so everyone is equal.

I am an unbaptised, unchurched, near 30 year old male agnostic pessimist who believes that the Gates of Hell has triumphed over the Church due to schism, particularly Chalcedon, which renders Christ a liar.


If you think I am wrong, please present your case.

What makes you think that the churches must be under the same titular head (other than Christ of course)?

The bottom line is this: I have existed without God in my life (from my end). I didn't go to Church, I don't celebrate Christmas, I don't celebrate Easter. I am not looking for God. I am looking for Truth. If God is Truth, then I want to find God. If Truth is that there is no God, then I guess I will just have to deal with that fact.

I am very inward looking. This is what flutters through my mind:

I want to see my father, my sister that I've never met, and my grandfather again after I die.

If there is a chance that this will happen, then I must find out how to do so. Thus, my spiritual search.

However, there is a chance that will not happen. This has far more reaching complications.

I am not a humanist. I'm not one of these, "Oh, just live your life the best you can, contribute to society, and die in peace." I don't want to just die in peace.

If there is no afterlife, then there is no purpose to existence.

If existence is meaningless, then there is no point in being here in the first place.

If there is no afterlife, every single thing I have learned. Every single thing I have felt, experienced, laughed at, cried over, and all my hard lessons learned will be for absolutely nothing.

See, a humanist would say it is not for nothing. They would, again, approach with the same tired rhetoric. "Enhance your society, leave your memory through art and science and contribution to the world."

See, that mess only works if there are other people here to enjoy it.

If everything I have and will ever learn is utterly erased upon my death, then why am I here? Why the **** did I learn 1 + 1 = 2 and then expand on that if it will all be gone when I die? Why? All of the people I love. All of my pain and suffering that I've experienced. All of my relationships. Why did I have them if I'm just going to be snuffed out of existence?

This becomes even larger.

If ALL humans are the same as me, then why is anyone here? Why? Why do we have children? To bring more people into the world that will erase upon death? To bring needless suffering into the world for nothing in the grand picture?

Remember, human achievements of all shapes and sizes are only relevant if there are other humans around to enjoy them.

If there is no afterlife, then everyone on the planet should commit suicide because it honestly would not make a bit of difference.

But.

If there is one thing that I can think of that fills with such utter horror, dread, and fear as annihilation after death it's this:

To live through your life believing an absolute hope-filled joy bringing lie.

I would rather go through life completely miserable knowing the truth than dandy-dancing all through life with a big evangelical grin on my face believing in something that is complete horse****.

So, when you're reading my words in our exchange, and you think to yourself, "Wow, this guy sure is down in the dumps. What's his deal?" I want you to remember all the stuff I just wrote to you. Now, think about this:

I think about what I just wrote to you from waking to sleeping, every single day of my life. EVERY single day.

Thus, you see why I'm so inward looking, withdrawn and melancholy. It's also a part of why I'm so crass, pessimistic, and sarcastic. It's how I keep sane a lot of the time.

So, I'll just go through life, looking and searching. I'll never find what I'm looking for, and every Christian on this planet will tell me that. [This was written to another Christian, but I could easily put any other religion in place of "Christian."]

Thus, I will live in fear for the rest of my life UNLESS something of fantastic proportions manifests itself to me in a way that leaves with no doubt in mind at all.

Let me also say one last thing to you, before my half-crazed, drooling lunatic exchange to you is concluded.

I have never, ever felt anything, not a glimmer, not a sliver of Presence of anything. There have been no miracles, no wonders, no Peak Experiences. I have laid in the bed begging for something, a flash, a feeling, something to let me know that I am not alone.

I see people go through their lives, just a-dancin' and a-smilin' because they have the belief, correct or incorrect, that everything is going to be alright because they've got Jesus.

I don't have that luxury of blind faith. I am just not wired that way and there is nothing I can do about it.

So, the next time you think I'm being lonely because I choose to be lonely...

Please reread this post of mine to you.

Peace.

Valid questions, and there is no good answer. Frankly, I don't think you realize that your path is one of a seeker. Is it supposed to be easy to find the answers to life, death, and why you haven't experienced anything out of the ordinary?

You may be stuck with not knowing until you die. Unfortunate, but very possible. But I would encourage you to keep looking. I believe Apostolic churches have a unique gift from our Lord Jesus to bestow onto humanity. But that may not be the way you encounter God. Who am I to say you wouldn't be better off a Jew or a Buddhist? Don't limit yourself in your seeking, and don't be surprised when you find what you are looking for.

God bless.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

... all apostolic churches may present the case for the Communion of their Church being the Way.

The best approach to discerning the Truth is to pray to the Holy Spirit to help guide you and then to do your scholarship, working in prayer.

May the Holy Spirit lead you to all Truth.


Your brother in Christ.

 

[JoabAnias]

Well, thats hurtful. Thanks. Because one of you is the real Church, maybe? Perhaps I do not have all the information? Perhaps I made a mistake?

I'm not a happy agnostic. Mouse over my faith icon.

This is a partial attempt at a reaching out for help, I guess. Work with me here.

I am getting the sense that your dissapointed that you do not have more faith.

I will ask another question geared toward provoking thought and also to raise the topic of how we attain faith. The question is: Do you pray? Simple yes or no answer would suffice unless you have other thoughts you would like to share of course.

I feel you do have a measure of faith. Its the measure you were given or you wouldn't even be feeling a deficiency in the first place. God tells us that all are given a measure of faith and that no sign will be given and then we know that He does choose to give signs from time to time. However, God cannot be mocked. Meaning He witholds a sign to give us hope of one. How can we have hope of a sign without believing He who Is can provide one if He so chooses. I say we cannot. Your not required to have a "blind" faith my friend. You only need the measure God has given you and that is how He accepts and Loves you.

I hope we can parlay this conversation about faith eventually into one on correct eschatology where I think there is a depth of lifes purpose here on earth that you may find edifying. Our sufferings can be for our own good as well of those who share in our existance and even some souls in the next.

Peace.

 

[retexan599]

Well, thats hurtful. Thanks. Because one of you is the real Church, maybe? Perhaps I do not have all the information? Perhaps I made a mistake?
I'm not a happy agnostic. Mouse over my faith icon.
This is a partial attempt at a reaching out for help, I guess. Work with me here.
Please see the links below.

When I read your post, I was reminded of this excerpt from C.S. Lewis; it is rather lengthy, but perhaps it will be helpful.


I hope no reader will suppose that 'mere' Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions -as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling. In plain language, the question should never be: 'Do I like that kind of service?' but 'Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?'When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Okay, apparently my OP has been misunderstood.

I believe everyone here is attempting to just get me to accept Christ.

That is not the purpose of this thread. I cannot even begin to accept Christ until I find out that the Gates of Hades has NOT prevailed, rendering Christ a liar and not God.

I want someone, definitively, to tell how and why, their church is the True Communion.

I've seen Anglicans in this thread tell me that ALL apostolic churches are valid. Why is this so? The Orthodox and Catholic churches disagree with you. Give me your evidence.

Come on, folks. You guys are so quick to defend your own churches and throw Church Father quotes and Ecumenical Council decrees in each other's face in your own home boards where one side is always at a disadvantage and threatened with the No Debating rule, but when I invite everyone here to finally hash it out and get to business, everyone is content to just sit back and watch.

I don't want you to tell me why Christian theology makes sense. I already own CS Lewis's book Mere Christianity. None of that crap matters if no one can show me where The Church is and TELL ME WHY YOUR CHURCH is the Communion of believers that has the FULL deposit of faith.

I'm tired of it. Don't tell me to pray. I've prayed for a year with no answer. Don't tell me to read the bible, or read this author, or read this Church father.

I want you, as Christians, to tell me where YOUR church, that is, THE church is. I don't want 15 different replies, because that isn't correct, is it?

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Also, I'm not even looking for evidence of "real miracles."

Three different communions that I can think of off the top of my head have at least one miracle that I can honestly believe:

Oriental Orthodox - Our Lady of Zeitoun

Eastern Orthodox - The Holy Fire of Jerusalem

Catholicism - The stigmata of Padre Pio

There are miracles of all kinds in each church, so not even this helps me.

 

[JasonV]

I believe everyone here is attempting to just get me to accept Christ.

If you are not going to read every post, then why bother? Perhaps you can take a look at mine again.

I want someone, definitively, to tell how and why, their church is the True Communion.

No such thing.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

So the Assyrians with their near Nestorian christology that are apostolic through the See of Babylon and all that? They're valid as well?

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

If you are not going to read every post, then why bother? Perhaps you can take a look at mine again.

While it's honorable to say that perhaps Buddhism or Judaism would be better for my spiritual health, in this particular discussion I'm focusing on Christianity only.

Besides, your brothers and sisters would disagree with you. Who shall I side with?

No such thing.

Source?

 

[Secundulus]

I am going to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church because this best says what I am trying to convey (I am not slighting the Orthodox and the Anglicans don't have a catechism to quote)

"The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."

There is no one single Church that has the faith to the exclusion of others.

I also spent around 15 years looking for this one "True" Church before finally coming to the conclusion stated above.

If anyone here disagrees with this, they are welcomed to do so publically for the edification of this thread.

 

[JoabAnias]

Also, I'm not even looking for evidence

Read this: ONLY ONE FAITH

and this: The Church: A Biblical Portrait

and this: The Marks of the Church

and tell me what you think.

Peace.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

If you are not going to read every post, then why bother? Perhaps you can take a look at mine again.



No such thing.

Read this: ONLY ONE FAITH

and this: The Church: A Biblical Portrait

and this: The Marks of the Church

and tell me what you think.

Peace.

Quite relevant to your own Church which was excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople and apparently confirmed by three other ancient Sees.

 

[JoabAnias]

Quite relevant to your own Church which was excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople and apparently confirmed by three other ancient Sees.

Yup anathemas were thrown around from both sides.

The course didn't waiver though did it?

Where do those others sees stand today?


Peace.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Yup anathemas were thrown around from both sides.

The course didn't waiver though did it?

Where do those others sees stand today?


Peace.

They stand where they always have stood. Entrenched in the spirituality of the Christian East, though of course, that then leads to which Orthodox Communion .

Whether or not they are correct or whether the Western Church is correct is the purpose of this thread.

 

[JoabAnias]

They stand where they always have stood.

If you mean they haven't changed then I would have to say no they are not where they always stood. Third Rome is new. They don't even all exist or are on the verge of extinction or are back in communion with Rome or have fallen. Only one has remained consistent.

Entrenched in the spirituality of the Christian East, though of course, that then leads to which Orthodox Communion.

Some entrenched in dissent perhaps or holding fast to autocephaly as a right while others have re-united with the Papal Magisterium that alone remains in the same tragectory and defines its existance upon the methods of understanding truth and not from who its seperated from.

Whether or not they are correct or whether the Western Church is correct is the purpose of this thread.

Correct about what? You mean re-hashing the schisms?

The only truly divisive issue is over the honor of primacy of the Petristic See to which even the EP assends to.

Peace.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Okay, apparently my OP has been misunderstood.

I believe everyone here is attempting to just get me to accept Christ.

That is not the purpose of this thread. I cannot even begin to accept Christ until I find out that the Gates of Hades has NOT prevailed, rendering Christ a liar and not God.

I want someone, definitively, to tell how and why, their church is the True Communion.

I've seen Anglicans in this thread tell me that ALL apostolic churches are valid. Why is this so? The Orthodox and Catholic churches disagree with you. Give me your evidence.

Come on, folks. You guys are so quick to defend your own churches and throw Church Father quotes and Ecumenical Council decrees in each other's face in your own home boards where one side is always at a disadvantage and threatened with the No Debating rule, but when I invite everyone here to finally hash it out and get to business, everyone is content to just sit back and watch.

I don't want you to tell me why Christian theology makes sense. I already own CS Lewis's book Mere Christianity. None of that crap matters if no one can show me where The Church is and TELL ME WHY YOUR CHURCH is the Communion of believers that has the FULL deposit of faith.

I'm tired of it. Don't tell me to pray. I've prayed for a year with no answer. Don't tell me to read the bible, or read this author, or read this Church father.

I want you, as Christians, to tell me where YOUR church, that is, THE church is. I don't want 15 different replies, because that isn't correct, is it?

Someone sounds cranky.

Your asking us to 'fight it out' ..so here goes.
I have to do this folks...if i didnt, then what would my faith serve.

I will say this as I firmly believe it...
The one to whom Christ choose to lead the Church is the one to whom holds the keys and to whom Christ said.....the gates of hell would not prevail against that which the Church was built upon. [Whether it be his profession of faith as the guage of the Father's choice among them....or the mere fact he was renamed Rock by Christ]

And i know this will cause a riot.
[ducking under the nearest table....muhahahaha]

Who is it?
And does his ministry still live on today with successors...?

I rest [ I am sleepy] my case.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It is almost 1:30 am here...and so i have to get to bed to get up for Mass early. [uh oh]

So i am going to point to the entire passage of Jesus........


WHO was given the leadership, and why does that matter?

Did He give it to Paul [in the vision], Did He stand out James among them for this?, or Bartholemew, or John, or Jude, or anyone else?

No.

So if there is ONE single person He choose among them because the Father put the confession into his words thru the Spirit........

Then it makes sense to read up on the history of this Apostles successors and a good place to acknowledge the start is thru St Ireneaus.
Who notes [along with other ecf's even before him] the important lineage of his chair. [succession]

Even though in schism, the Greek or Orthodox Church in whole acknowledge the Primacy and role of Peter is set apart.

NOW...Catholics who have the successor of Peter would not follow Peter if John or Bartholemew or any other was instead was choosen by the Father and handed this role by Christ.

Ours is not about Peter the person, to why we obey him [our prelate - see Hebrews]
But because the Father wanted him and Christ knew this and made him lead.

Matthew 16

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?


16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 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. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

18 "Thou art Peter"... As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 "Upon this rock"... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

18 "The gates of hell"... That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

19 "Loose upon earth"... The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted.

Now, the term Apostolic Succession means all the Churches that have rightful succession can still perform valid sacraments, but they are not following the updated definitions of the Pope of Rome...
Yet they keep Tradition was was handed down [as does Rome - who will not fail] except as Sheperd, the minsitry of Peter is unique in speaking cathedra.

Which includes the power of excommunication in all the regions of the Church and fixing the dilemmas of the Churches world wide as history will certainly show you.IF you so indulge.

Frankly, neither West nor East ever 'ex communicated' the other.

The legates excommunicated the Bishop Caerularius, and the Bishop Caerularius excommunicated the legates.

Altho in schism...[not talking in the same way from the beginning and letting the Roman Pope oversee everything as before...

It is essentially the same Church.

We just have to tweek the nuts and bolts.

I could go further...on this, but i am sleepy.

 

[prodromos]

Judging by what has been posted recently it seems apparent that the Catholic Church is built on Peter, as opposed to the Orthodox Church which is built on all the Apostles. Rome has even done her best to forget that she was founded by Peter AND Paul, seeing as Paul is not helpful to their cause.

Another thing is that according to the Latin view of history, divorce was also permitted in the Catholic Church centuries prior to the schism. Oddly enough it wasn't considered a big enough issue to include in the Papal Bull of Excommunication of 1054. Very strange considering it is one of the areas that Catholics joyfully accuse the Orthodox of "changing" since the schism.

John

 

[prodromos]

So if there is ONE single person He choose among them because the Father put the confession into his words thru the Spirit........

So why aren't Nathaniel and Martha contenders? They made the same confession long before Peter did.

Frankly, neither West nor East ever 'ex communicated' the other.

The legates excommunicated the Bishop Caerularius, and the Bishop Caerularius excommunicated the legates.

Read the text of the Papal Bull of Excommunication. It excommunicated Caerularius and all who followed him. This in effect included all the Eastern Patriarchates in the excommunication since they all believed as Caerularius did.

 

[JoabAnias]

So why aren't Nathaniel and Martha contenders? They made the same confession long before Peter did.

Because its about WHO JESUS picked and for what purpose that is significant.

Read the text of the Papal Bull of Excommunication. It excommunicated Caerularius and all who followed him. This in effect included all the Eastern Patriarchates in the excommunication since they all believed as Caerularius did.

Which schism is that and have you got a source for that? I'd love to see it.

Many years.