How would you explain me then? I was saved at 17, Methodist and non denominational. As soon as I hit adulthood proper, I fell away. I still prayed but stopped going to church and fell into all sorts of sin. I converted a year ago to Catholicism and my house has gotten in order almost in spite of myself. I am the Christian I always should have been. Not by my doing just my will to follow Jesus. Maybe I wasn’t strong or disciplined enough to be Protestant. Going to mass and going to confession has literally turned my life around to what I was first blessed enough to taste when I got baptised as an adult and experienced the Holy Spirit soon before. I am living proof that God doesn’t act in a linear way.
I have nothing to explain to you, since my response to chessnerd321 was about that poster’s interpretation of Scripture that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the Catholic Church or its members’ spiritual journeys but solely was directed at that poster’s interpretation of a passage from Revelation.
I must have misunderstood you then. Apologies.
In fact he prayed: ‘that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.’
Ok-but spin-off upon spin off can amount to nothing but schism at best. And the sale of indulgences had nothing to do with Catholic doctrine but everything to do with the abuse or ignoring of it. There’s a principle to learn from Matt 23:1-2:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
The message was right, the messengers not so. And that’s the point. God ensures that His Church will continue to possess the message intact, never that any of His messengers will be impeccable, wonderful as that would be.
And the logic involves the fact that by now you should know the sheer fallacy of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and that leaves only the teachings of the ancient churches that can trace their historical legacy, their Tradition, back to the beginning. There’s a reason why the basic points of our faith agree between the EO and Catholicism, even after centuries of isolation from each other, when compared to Protestant theology, which often disagrees within its ranks for that matter, due to using Scripture as their rule of faith. This involves justification, baptism, the sacraments, the Real Presence/Eucharist, theosis/deification, etc.
Yes that verse speaks about the universal priesthood. No that’s not the only thing it means. That’s one of the great things about scripture. How self-referential and deep it is
You also ignored my point, which was my main point if you happened to see the context, that clearly one kingdom was established. Meaning that there is a historical Christian Church.
And, your OP is exactly why I’m sitting here a Catholic today.
Come on home.
You’re making too much sense here lol.
This may help you it is short and easy to read.
1 Corinthians 12
14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many.
15 If the foot would say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.
16 And if the ear would say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
19 If all were a single member, where would the body be?
20 As it is, there are many members, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
It’s making so much sense to me that I’m thinking of going to noon-day mass at the Cathedral to celebrate the Feast of the Assumption.
Thank you for sharing. I don’t question the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity. I also can see that She was assumed into heaven. I guess the one that I still slightly struggle with is the Immaculate Conception.
I don’t want to derail the thread, but if you have anything on that, please DM me.
Of course you are making an assumption that - one the Feast of the Assumption no less - that this tract is analogous to the church itself. It might be - I’m not saying it isn’t - but that would have required the author to have foresight of the divisions in the church centuries later. And there is simply no reference here to indicate that that is the message that is trying to be conveyed.
"the truth remains that Jesus Christ founded only one church"
In its fuller understanding it is referred to as being - The Mystical Body of Christ
A long comprehensive Catholic Encyclical Teaching containing 220 references:
That said, this following selection should be of topical interest as well. .
- As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the “great and glorious Body of Christ” and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their father’s home.
That’s where I got, some 30 years ago, and I realized that I (at that time a “former Catholic”) had become part of the problem and not part of the solution. I came home to the Catholic Church.
Yes there were problems, and difficulties - but as (soon to be “saint”) John Henry Newman said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.” There is one Church.
1 Corinthians 1
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.
12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas;still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
I feel like the RCC is the mother boat, so to speak. The original boat from 2,000 yrs ago. And all protestant Churches ‘borrowed’ some material from that boat. And so both sides are sailing towards our ultimate destination.
Obviously we have more tools and material to guide us along in that journey. Protestants would argue that some of it is excessive.
At the end of the day I wonder if Luther had been more patient, maybe there is a Lutheran rite within the Church? He never get’s excommunicated and never totally breaks. But if not him, it’s Calvin or whoever. With the advent of the printing press and an era of more individualism upon us, it was going to happen, regardless.
I feel like ultimately, protestantism produces Churches’ unto each individual.
I saw plenty of bickering and denomination shopping in my time as Protestant. People become so petty that they will break from their Church community over an argument about what color the draperies are supposed to be. I wish I were kidding. This is a horrible stain upon Christendom and beneath us as Christians. Even though I am no longer protestant and never will return, I do wish they would start getting along with each other and form some sort of unity amongst each other.
In regards to Anglicanism, I feel like they make most sense of all the protestant Churches. Because even though it’s still a break form the Church and they changed too much doctrinally during the reformation, you can still believe much of what Rome teachesand nobody will really call you on it. They are quite the mixed bag.
A study of Early Christianity historically may yield a different result.