IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH "THE ONE TRUE CHURCH" ?
WHEN I WAS GOING TO SCHOOL IN THE 1950'S AND 1960'S I WAS TAUGHT THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH".
I WAS ALSO TAUGHT THAT ALL NON ROMAN CATHOLICS WOULD NEVER GET INTO HEAVEN.
I WAS ALSO TAUGHT THAT IT WAS A "MORTAL SIN" TO GO INTO A PROTESTANT CHURCH.
THE ALONG CAME THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DID NOT WANT TO BE OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE OF OTHER CHURCHES.
SO THEN I WAS TOLD THAT "THE ONE TRUE CHURCH SUBSISTS IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH".
PROTESTANT CHURCHES:
THERE ARE OF COURSE MANY RIGHT WING AND FUNDAMENTALIST "PROTESTANT" CHURCH WHO HAVE TAUGHT, AND STILL TEACH, THE SAME MESSAGE.
MANY DINOSAUR PROTESTANTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND BELIEVE AND PREACH THAT "ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL NEVER GET INTO HEAVEN.
THEY ALSO CALL THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH: "THE WHORE OF BABYLON" AND THEY CALL THE POPE "THE ANTI-CHRIST". THIS WAS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE REVEREND IAN PAISLEY'S HATE FILLED MESSAGES.
 |
| PAISLEY |
I THINK TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "WHICH CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH" YOU HAVE TO TURN TO JESUS AND ASK HIM.
WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT HIS "CHURCH" AND HIS DISCIPLES?
HE SAID: "IT IS BY THEIR FRUITS THAT YE SHALL KNOW MY DISCIPLES".
WHAT ARE THE FRUITS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?
WELL I THINK THERE ARE "GOOD" FRUITS AND BAD "FRUITS". THE GOOD FRUITS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE IN MY OPINION:
1. THE PRESERVATION OF THE WORD OF GOD IN THE BIBLE.
2. THE PRESERVATION OF AND THE PRACTICE OF THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS.
3. THE MANY HOLY MEN AND WOMEN OF EVERY TIME AND PLACE WHO HAVE
LIVED OR WHO ARE LIVING.
4. THE MANY THOUSANDS OF GOOD CATHOLIC PRIESTS, NUN AND RELIGIOUS
WHO GAVE UP THEIR LIVES TO SERVE THEIR FELLOW MEN AND WOMEN IN
THEIR OWN OR ABROAD IN AREAS LIKE TEACHING AND NURSING AND
COMMUNITY BUILDING.
5. THE PRESERVATION OF THE LIVES AND WRITINGS OF THE SAINTS.
6. ANY ACT OF LOVE AND SERVICE THE CHURCH OR ONE OF ITS MEMBERS DOES
TO A FELLOW MAN OR WOMAN.
WHAT ARE THE "BAD FRUITS" OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?
1. ITS ALIGNMENT WITH THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
2. ITS POPE KINGS FIGHTING BATTLES AND MURDERING THOUSANDS / MILLIONS.
3. THE CRUSADES TO THE HOLY LAND AND THE SLAUGHTER OF MUSLIMS.
4. THE CORRUPT MIDDLE AGES PAPACY.
5. THE INQUISITION.
6. 2000 YEARS OF NEGATIVE ATTITUDE TO WOMEN AND SEXUALITY.
7. ITS FAILURE TO FACE UP TO HITLER.
8. THE ABUSE OF THE VULNERABLE - ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.
9. ITS ALIGNMENT WITH THE WORLD'S ESTABLISHMENTS AND DICTATORS.
10. THE MONARCHIAL PAPACY AND THE VATICAN STATE.
11. THE IMPOSITION OF OBLIGATORY CELIBACY ON PRIESTS.
12. ITS LOVE OF RICHES AND POWER AND THE VATICAN BANK.
THE CHURCH IS TWO THINGS - ONE THE ONE HAND ITS THE BEAUTIFUL FAMILY OF GOD.
ON THE OTHER HAND ITS A CORRUPT HUMAN EMPIRE.
ITS LIKE WHEAT AND CHAFF GROWING TOGETHER.
JESUS HAS TOLD US THAT ON THE LAST DAY HE WILL BURN THE CHAFF AND HARVEST THE WHEAT.
 |
| DIVIDING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF |
ANY DECENT CATHOLIC MUST ASPIRE TO BE AMONG THE WHEAT.
Bishop Pat Buckley
After a list of imprisonments, floggings, shipwrecks, and other dangers that he endured, Paul concluded: "And, besides other things, I
ReplyDeleteam under daily pressure because of my anxiety for all the churches" (2 Corinthians 11: 28). There were six churches to which Paul wrote his
letters (ROME, CORINTH, EPHESUS, PHILIPPI, COLOSSAE, THESSALONICA).
The Epistle to the Galatians was probably a joint letter to four churches in the Province of Galatia (ANTIOCH in Pisidia, ICONIUM, LYSTRA, DERBE) which Paul and Barnabas established during the first missionary journey. The Apostle John wrote to seven churches in the Province of ASIA Minor (EPHESUS, SMYRNA, PERGAMUM, THYATIRA, SARDIS, PHILADELPHIA, LAODICEA). Peter wrote to Jewish Christians in PONTUS, GALATIA, CAPPADOCIA, ASIA, and BYTHINIA(1 Peter 1:1). There were other churches mentioned by name which do not have letters connected with
them (ALEXANDRIA, ANTIOCH in Syria, ATHENS, BEROEA, CAESAREA, CAPPADOCIA, CENCHREA, COLOSSAE, DAMASCUS, ILLYRICUM, JOPPA, LYDDA,
PAPHOS, PTOLEMAIS, PUTEOLI, SAMARIA, SIDON, TARSUS,TROAS). Perhaps 6 churches were planted in CRETE (Titus 1:5). There were also probably
churches in RHODES, SALAMIS, SAMOS, SYRACUSE, and also in ARABIA, EDESSA, INDIA, MALTA and PELLA.
That gives us a count of at least 54 city churches, but we might guess a total of at least twice that number were planted in the first twenty years of church growth.
Seriously, ONE TRUE CHURCH, God forgive them for even daring to say that, what arrogance and ignorance of OUR COMMON heritage.
BISHOPS TOLD THEY SHOULD WATCH THEIR ECUMENICAL LANGUAGE
ReplyDeleteThe Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith I recall had written to bishops around the world cautioning them on how they use the expression "sister Churches" when engaged in ecumenical dialogue. The document says the Catholic Church is not a sister, but mother of all particular Churches.
The three-and-a-half page "note", was signed on 30 1999 June by the prefect of the congregation, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and its secretary, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone. It attempts to clarify the proper sense of the expression "sister Churches", which "may only be used by those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid episcopate and Eucharist".
The congregations document sketches what it calls "the origin and development of the expression" and then spells out "directives" on its use. It says that "the significance which the expression sister Churches has assumed in the ecumenical dialogue. . . makes the correct theological term even more important". According to the document, "sister Churches are
exclusively particular Churches" while "the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all particular Churches".
I recall a theologian saying privately that it was his general opinion that the letter resurrected the pre-Vatican II "one, true Church" doctrine without explicitly saying so. He suggested that the document be read "in the context of the post-conciliar effort by Cardinal Ratzinger and others to formulate a revisionist interpretation of article 8 of Vatican II's constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium: This Church . . . subsists in the Catholic Church. . . . "
The new document's timing remained unclear. Though it is dated 30 June, it appears that the text was not actually sent to the bishops until well after the high-level Roman Catholic-Orthodox summit which took place from 9 to 19 July in the United States. In the light of the stalemate at those July talks (the two sides were not even able to issue a concluding joint statement), the letter on sister Churches is likely to be to cause further irritation in non-Catholic church bodies.
The new document says: "There is but a single Church, and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches." When speaking of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church or Churches, it says, "one should avoid. . . the use of such formulations such as our two Churches" so as not to cause "misunderstanding and theological confusion".
Confusion aside, the congregation's note is likely to cause a further stir by its rejection of the first millennium practice in the East of placing patriarchs at the head of the Church, with Rome having first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. The document states clearly: "It needs to be noted that no Roman pontiff ever recognised this equalisation of sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the see of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West."
In a letter accompanying the congregation's "note", Cardinal Ratzinger said this new document should be "held as authoritative and binding" since it was approved by Pope John Paul II among whose titles is "Patriarch of the West".
Yes, they believe that they are the 'ONE, TRUE CHURCH'! Scripture says that the Lord prayed 'that they may be one', the Roman Church is the stumbling block, the elephant in the room in ecumaenical terms. They are not willing ecumenical partners and it is time that their bluff and pretense was called.
WORTH A READ:
ReplyDeleteThe Archbishop of Canterbury's response:
ACNS 2219 Lambeth Palace 5 September 2000
Statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the Roman Catholic Document 'Dominus Ieusus'
By restating the long-held view of the Roman Catholic Church on the position of other Christian churches, this document breaks no new ground. But neither does it fully reflect the deeper understanding that has been achieved through ecumenical dialogue and co-operation during the past thirty years. Even though the document is not part of that process, the idea that Anglican and other churches are not "proper churches" seems to question the considerable ecumenical gains we have made.
It is important that we recognise and celebrate ecumenical progress. It is a task to which I remain fully committed on behalf of both the Church of England and the world-wide Anglican Communion. It is one I shall continue to pursue with both Roman Catholic and other church leaders on the basis of deep mutual respect.
Indeed, at an important meeting of senior Anglicans and Roman Catholics in Toronto, earlier this year, which I chaired jointly with Cardinal Cassidy, we made striking advances in acknowledging substantial agreement on a range of issues and in proposing a new Joint Unity Commission to carry things forward.
Of course, the Church of England, and the world-wide Anglican Communion, does not for one moment accept that its orders of ministry and Eucharist are deficient in any way. It believes itself to be a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ, in whose name it serves and bears witness, here and round the world.
I wish that the ROMANS would get out of the way to the fulfilment of Christ's wish; 'that they may be one'! Step aside Rome!
I listened to a girl preach in Church this morning. She is on a placement which is one of her eary steps on her on her journey of discernment to evaluate her possible call to Priesthood within the Church of England. Like me she was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church. Her main point was the Centrality of Christ to our journey of salvation. As a supporting point she added that it is futile to pray to the saints. I smiled at this and recalled what happened with our 3 year old granddaughter Skye yesterday. My wife Clarice decided I would benefit from a horseriding lesson. I had mounted our horse-Boo & realised I had not put my helmet on. Clarice asked Skye to go in the stable and fetch the hat that was on the floor. Skye returned with a sweeping brush. Clarice asked her again to fetch the hat & this time she fetched a rake. Third attempt Clarice held onto Boo with one hand, edged to the stable door and this time pointed to the riding hat over in the corner. Skye duly picked up the hat which proceeded to keep my head safe for the next half our or so. The point of this is that how we hear what God (and others) say to us depends on where we are along the road of life and how and who relates the message to us. In the past the "magestic and imperialistic" church distanced the Word of Scripture and Liturgy from the common folk-use of Latin Language, lack of access to the Bible etc. It was only natural that people would turn to saints as role models and eventually pray to them as intersessors because they believed they were not good enough to speak to God. Christian denominations are a sign of a world growing up and into the presence of God. This growth into truth is not limited by denomination or religious boundries of any kind for all Truth is One and Aristotle once said that oneness or Being is an attribute of God himself. The Saints living or dead are our mentors but the journey into fullness of life is only limited by our own stubbornness and the measure that the Holy Spirit is given to each of us accoding to our needs.
ReplyDelete