Why do we need any one denomination?

[Root of Jesse]

I follow simplicity over tradition.

Do you believe in the Trinity?

 

[Root of Jesse]

So remind me, what was 1054 all about?

Some people split from each other. Paraphrasing Ilhan Omar.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Oh, you mean the Orthodox church?

Because either we have denominations, or we are two billion people where no two have anything in common, or we all become Orthodox.

We're talking about what Jesus said. One Church. Not what people do...

 

[Root of Jesse]

What you've done is convert an expressed desire on the part of Christ that his followers be of one mind into a command or a prophesy. It is neither. And then you have selected, on your own, one means by which you assume, incorrectly, that that might be achieved. There is no denomination, not even yours, in which all the members are united in belief.

Well, Christ didn't desire anything he didn't get. As for your last statement, it's true, no two people believe the same thing. But the Church teaches one body of teaching, and that, my friend, is Catholic. And, for what it's worth, all Protestant denominations are a subset of Catholic teaching.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So you're saying that the gospel taught in Catholic churches has elements that don't exist in Scripture?

“…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.” -- Gregory of Nyssa

Our translation of the gospel have elements that don't exist in Scripture. The Trinity is an example of this. Also, Sacred Tradition informs Scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, to pick just two things, is Molinism correct, or Thomism? The Congregatio de Auxiliis promised us an answer.

Are the answers to this question essential to salvation? Or are they just ways to think of how God does things?

And what are the answers to the dubia on Amoris laetitia?

I don't think this is essential to salvation either.
And for a bonus question, does anyone really believe that accidents can exist while inhering in no substance, as the Tridentine Catechism says? If so, feel free to explain how.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we do believe that. How, is a mystery.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, all I can say to that re-definition is that the meaning is clearcut and you can verify this by consulting almost any Bible commentary if you aren't willing to accept the plain meaning of the words themselves.

Bible commentary is not authoritative. But if it was a Catholic Bible commentary, I'd bet it wouldn't.

And that is why we have doctrinal disputes and, sometimes, schisms such as when your church split from Constantinople and, later, from Canterbury.

There was a dispute in John 6 where His disciples went beck to what they were doing. Doctrinal disputes are generally between people. 'This saying is too hard, how can anyone follow it?' Doctrine is doctrine. '“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.'

Indeed, there probably is no denomination out of all that exist which has experienced more splits than the Roman Catholic Church, so it is a bit odd, to say the least, to have members of that church arguing as though it alone has never been involved in any.

Well when you're the oldest and biggest, you're likely to have more splitters.

You could say that, considering that the Catechism has been revised many times to keep up with changing beliefs.

Catechism change shows 'true dogmatic progress,' archbishop says

Catechisms are revised to include more modern documents and to speak to the audience reading them. Sort of like you 'revised' the KJV Bible to the NKJV Bible. And dogma doesn't change. Progress is not necessarily strange.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What about people that have no physical means of attending church, that are limited by disability, transportation issues, live in remote places?

What about them? I see people at Mass every Sunday that a ministry of the Church provide transportation to. For those who cannot attend, there's Mass on television and another ministry to bring them Eucharist. Those who simply can't, can't. God understands that.

 

[Albion]

Well, Christ didn't desire anything he didn't get. As for your last statement, it's true, no two people believe the same thing. But the Church teaches one body of teaching, and that, my friend, is Catholic. And, for what it's worth, all Protestant denominations are a subset of Catholic teaching.

In other words, the Protestant churches trace their origins, their history, back to the Catholic church of the Apostolic Age, no less than the Church of Rome and the Orthodox churches do.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You mean people who approach the problem without any bias or personal favorite?

Except anti-Catholic?

Because the differences between the church bodies are simply a matter of history; personal preference should have nothing to do with the answer. The differences between the EO and RC, for instance, are glaring and clearly provable from history, meaning that which of these is the older and least changed isn't really in question.

They're actually personal difference, not completely doctrinal.

 

[W2L]

What is that doctrine?

I don't agree with Catholicism's interpretation of John 6, and their assertion that The Lord's flesh and blood is literal

 

[W2L]

Do you believe in the Trinity?

Blank stare

 

[☦Marius☦]

In other words, the Protestant churches trace their origins, their history, back to the Catholic church of the Apostolic Age, no less than the Church of Rome and the Orthodox churches do.

The ones who have aspostilic succession from whenever they split off can make the claim. The rest? No. To be honest I think it also depends on the circumstances of the split.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In other words, the Protestant churches trace their origins, their history, back to the Catholic church of the Apostolic Age, no less than the Church of Rome and the Orthodox churches do.

Yes, but started by men, rather than the Holy Spirit.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't agree with Catholicism's interpretation of John 6, and their assertion that The Lord's flesh and blood is literal

So you're with those who walked away and went back to their former lives. Got it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Blank stare

Well the doctrine of the Trinity is Tradition...it's not really simple, either.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but started by men, rather than the Holy Spirit.

What do you call 200 plus bishops of Rome, over twenty ecumenical councils, and the magisterium, if not men? You even make legend and custom into doctrine. Those come from men rather than God, too. That's who made your belief system.

As for Christ starting his church, all of us who believe are the objects of that authorization. We are all, as has been note many times here, the branches of the same tree, the "undivided church" of antiquity. That is true of the RCC, EO, Anglicans, Copts, Armenians, etc. etc.

 

[Radagast]

Are the answers to this question essential to salvation?

If we only need agreement on questions essential to salvation, then us Protestants are doing OK,

 

[Radagast]

Our translation of the gospel have elements that don't exist in Scripture.

That's very, very disturbing, if true.

However, when I look at the most recent Catholic Bible (the NABRE), that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Tone]

They met for worship, to receive Eucharist, and to strengthen each other.

They met because they loved one another.