How do you know if you are in Christ's Church?

[amarkich]

Okay, rather than arguing specifics, like liturgy, can a non-Catholic please address the post's point (no red herrings). Please find any "church" that has had consistent doctrine and been practiced by a group since 33 a.D. Thanks. Mulls, I am specifically asking you, but any non-Catholic can answer.

[M.SIGGA]

Mulls,

I might be reading you wrong because computers smell of elderberries, but your understanding of the Church seems to be almost totally Pauline without giving equal weight to the entire New Testament, which is all equally God's Word. Christ didn't wipe the slate clean and abolish the Old Law/ Tradition, He came to fulfill it. This is the Good News. There is nothing other than a true depiction of Christ's fulfillment in that sig pic.

The descriptions of Christian worship from the 1st 4 centuries is the basis for what you see in that pic. What is really the turnoff and what about that pic is not portraying Christ's fulfillment? Is it the gold, or the robes, or the motions/ movements? Everything in the liturgy, including the vestments, has a specific meaning. Do you think tradition is evil?

FYI, you might already know this, but until the 20th century, Protestant worship was derived copied in various different manners from the scene in that pic, even Baptists and so called non-liturgical protestants. Many still are today too.

Keep ya head up - God Bless - Pax Christi.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 25 2004, 02:02 AM'] balthazor thank you for the intelligent response, i really appreciate it. thats the kind of dialogue i like.

btw i grew up catholic, been to mass week in and week out for 19 years, so i know what its about. moreso now than i did then. but pictures like those really throw me for a loop sometimes....that stuff and the vatican stuff. [/quote]
If you know what it was all about, you wouldn't be wrong on so much of it.
Catechesis is where you learn about the Mass... not in the Mass.

There are many many people who go to a Catholic Church for years and not know what it's about and think that they do.

Please stop avoiding the topic, and prove what you claim.

Some people avoid the truth when they don't want the truth to be true... does that make the truth less true? No. Do it for Christ mulls. Can you do it for Christ?

Can you, for the love of Christ, show us Early Church Fathers (the first generations of Christians), that you hold their faith... the One Faith.

If your faith cannot be shown in teaching in the first 700 years of Christianity, how can you say that your faith is the faith of the Apostles?

Christ said never overcome and the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit in all truth....

How can truth contradict truth?

Mulls... you came onto this thread, please address the topic.

"Church" is not a philosophical arguement... It's this simple:

"What did the Early Church Fathers believe the Church to be?"

Please show us with quotes.... also, please use quotes from men that all of their writings do not contradict anything that you believe.

Wouldn't you think that if you are in the One Faith started by Christ, you will be able to do that little task?

Would you like help with this task?

Here is a google search on the Early Church Fathers writings for the word "Church":
[url="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=site%3Anewadvent.org++fathers+Church"]http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en...+fathers+Church[/url]

If you would like further help, please let me know.




Everyone...
this is my delima... I love Christ... If I don't have an answer to someone's attacks on Christ or His Church, I'll find an answer. I know that His Church will never be overcome... so there will always be an answer. I keep hunting until I find it. I have always been able to find an answer. It boggles my mind how some people seem like they don't care... it's like they're lukewarm. "Yes, I believe in Jesus, but I don't know the answers to your questions, but you be happy with your answers and I'll just keep going on without answers"... it's absurd to say we believe in Jesus and reject the truth Jesus and what He did with His Church. (Some might say I'm being a little harsh with this statement, but prove the Church wrong and then it will be too harsh... if the Church is right, then the statement is needed)

I can't fathom why anyone who claims that they love Christ would be satisfied without having an answer for some of the most basic questions... unless they were running from the truth. If they are running from the truth, then they are running from Christ, because Christ wants us to have the Truth or He wouldn't have promised that the Holy Spirit would always guide the Church in all matters of Truth.

Christianity is not a buffet that we get to pick and choose what we want. We sit and eat what our Father gives us. We need to clean our plates.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited November 26, 2004 by ironmonk

[mulls]

i'm not searching for answers, i don't have any ultimate truth questions, at least none that i would come here in order to answer.

by the way, what did i ever claim?

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 26 2004, 12:13 AM'] i'm not searching for answers, i don't have any ultimate truth questions, at least none that i would come here in order to answer.

by the way, what did i ever claim? [/quote]
My questions towards you were subjective, about likes and dislikes. In order to make comments like this,

[quote]maybe i'm wrong. but honestly use some perspective....what does that look like to you guys? [/quote]

you must have some sort of opinion because you are obviously hinting towards something. I think my questions were fair.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:13 AM'] i'm not searching for answers, i don't have any ultimate truth questions, at least none that i would come here in order to answer.

by the way, what did i ever claim? [/quote]
[quote]speaking of that sig, you're telling me that's the church that Jesus started?

seriously. [/quote]

Again, changing the subject....

You claimed that the Church was not started by Christ.
You claim that you are in the Church started by Christ, but you have a different deffinition of what Church means than the Apostles did. If that is so, how can you be in the Church started by Christ if you do not define it as the Apostles and other first Christians did for over 700 years?


If you loved Christ, you would follow Christ, even if it leads you where you don't want to go.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 26 2004, 02:13 AM'] i'm not searching for answers. [/quote]
Interesting admission.

Anyway, I'm curious to see if you'd like to start a thread and explain the meaning behind your comments about Chanman450's signature picture.

[mulls]

[quote]Interesting admission.[/quote]

not really. most know i'm here simply to learn about catholocism, and stand up for christians who get wrongly bashed by catholics, just as most here stand up for catholic christians who get wrongly bashed by other christians. and obviously i like to debate a bit here and there, though i'm not nearly educated enough to hold my own with all these scholars. i'm all about learning though, and my beliefs haven't wavered one bit since the day i got here.


[quote]Anyway, I'm curious to see if you'd like to start a thread and explain the meaning behind your comments about Chanman450's signature picture.[/quote]

eh, doesn't really thrill me, but if you make it interesting i'll hop on board.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:06 AM']
not really. most know i'm here simply to learn about catholocism, and stand up for christians who get wrongly bashed by catholics, just as most here stand up for catholic christians who get wrongly bashed by other christians. and obviously i like to debate a bit here and there, though i'm not nearly educated enough to hold my own with all these scholars. i'm all about learning though, and my beliefs haven't wavered one bit since the day i got here.[/quote]
I really don't know much about you other than you are ex-Catholic, but still some kind of Christian. And, you like basketball.

In my time here, I have yet to see protestants get "wrongly bashed" without having the mods come to their defense. I would say that such personal attacks are the exception at Phatmass, and most people here are quite friendly in their treatment toward protestants.

If, by "wrongly bashed," you are refering to their beliefs being attacked wrongly, then your criticism is unfounded. Protestant novelties are a departure from true Christianity, and are "rightly bashed" by the Truth of Jesus Christ as taught by His Church. We have a moral obligation to correct those in error.

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:06 AM']eh, doesn't really thrill me, but if you make it interesting i'll hop on board.[/quote]

I only brought this up because I didn't know what you meant by the statement, and I thought it was off-topic. If you don't explain yourself when you throw out a statement with the sole purpose to offend, what purpose does that serve? I'll go ahead and start a thread so you can explain your position.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]1.) Prove it wrong
2.) Become Catholic[/quote]

Again with the either/or mentality when it's not warranted. Just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't mean it's true. I can't prove the boogyman wrong but that doesn't mean it's true.

You'll say that if the Catholic Church existed for so long, then a contradiction should arise. First of all, you're not proving the Catholic Church, you're just giving benefit of doubt. All those things that you assert as church.. truth.. one.. is what any church would believe. They just don't all claim to have the church the way you guys do.

To examine this assertion that no contraditions arise a few things should be noted.

One I think that no salvation outside the Catholic Church and the newer concept contradict.

I can find two people who believe what I do throughout history. Is it necessary to have them believe everything that I do?

I think what will happen is that iron will insist that what he has is factual proof for the validity of the Catholic Church. But we all know when we're honest that he doesn't necessarily. Then he'll just say well then prove it wrong. Notice he has those two arguments. The fact taht he has the second I think does indicate that his "proofs" are not adequate.

I'll show more in a bit.

Edited November 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 27 2004, 04:29 PM']
Again with the either/or mentality when it's not warranted. Just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't mean it's true. I can't prove the boogyman wrong but that doesn't mean it's true.
[/quote]


You do not know what you are talking about. Read the bible a dozens of times then you might have some kind of clue. Study history from REAL sources.

It is warrented.

If you knew what Christ said, you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements. You also have to be able to comprehend logic. You need to work on two things... reading the bible over and over... and studying logic.


[quote]You'll say that if the Catholic Church existed for so long, then a contradiction should arise. First of all, you're not proving the Catholic Church, you're just giving benefit of doubt. All those things that you assert as church.. truth.. one.. is what any church would believe. They just don't all claim to have the church the way you guys do.[/quote]

Wrong.

[quote]To examine this assertion that no contraditions arise a few things should be noted.One I think that no salvation outside the Catholic Church and the newer concept contradict. [/quote]

This shows us three things:
1. that you do not know what the Church means
2. that you do not know Christ's words very well
3. You do not know enough of Christ's teachings to even argue the topic

It's not a contradiction.

[quote]I can find two people who believe what I do throughout history. Is it necessary to have them believe everything that I do?[/quote]

This shows you have not read the life of Christ enough or you can't remember what you read... or it shows you cannot draw the logical "1 + 1 = 2" type of deductions from Christ's and the Apostle's teachings.

[quote]I think what will happen is that iron will insist that what he has is factual proof for the validity of the Catholic Church. But we all know when we're honest that he doesn't necessarily. Then he'll just say well then prove it wrong. Notice he has those two arguments. The fact taht he has the second I think does indicate that his "proofs" are not adequate.[/quote]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You fail to realize we are not studying ancient history. Thousands of people in dozens of countries under dozens of different goverments kept records since before the time of Christ.

The Jews even say the Catholic Church was first! They are the people who the First Covenant was with, they will know!

Every professional historian claims that the Catholic Church was first.
Luther, Knox, Calvin, etc... ALL claim the Catholic Church was first. MOST protestants that have any kind of education CLAIM the Catholic Church WAS FIRST.


Encyclopedia Britannica states that it was FIRST:

[quote]Roman Catholicism
Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure that traces its history to the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD. Along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it is one of the three major branches of Christianity.

"Roman Catholicism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2004.  Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.
27 Nov. 2004 [url="http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9109700"]http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9109700[/url].

[/quote]



You should be studying instead of trying to argue about something you know absolutly nothing about.

It would be one thing to ask questions... and ask for references to check... but when you try to a make a point that is totally in left field, you only show people that you do not know what you are talking about.

This will help you in debating here:

1. Go buy a red letter bible. Read at least one chapter every day. Take notes. Group verses which talk about the same topic in your notes. Then compare them from time to time.

2. Please read the New Testament at least seven times while taking notes and comparing them. Before trying to debate anymore. If you've already read the NT seven times... then please read it another seven.

3. Books & websites to read:
[url="http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/tgs/how-to-study-and-learn.shtml"]http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/...and-learn.shtml[/url]
[url="http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/tgs/"]http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/tgs/[/url]
[url="http://www.austhink.org/critical/"]http://www.austhink.org/critical/[/url]
[url="http://www.ithaca.edu/library/Training/hott.html"]http://www.ithaca.edu/library/Training/hott.html[/url]
[url="http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/"]http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/[/url]

4. Join [url="http://www.Britannica.com"]http://www.Britannica.com[/url] and use it to help your study

5. [url="http://www.USCCB.org"]http://www.USCCB.org[/url] - if you want to argue against it, then at least know what you are arguing against



[quote]I'll show more in a bit. [/quote]


More of nothing is still nothing.

Why not stay off threads I start? I have tried and tried again to be charitable with you, but you can't take the clues. So I'm being blunt.

[b]It is obvious that you have not studied what you are talking about... stop wasting my time. [/b]



I've tried to direct you what to read to know what you're talking about, but to no avail. Debating with you is like debating a wall... you either do not pay attention to what is posted or you can't comprehend it... maybe it's a combination and something else from bizzaro world that I don't know about.

Maybe you were sent to try people's patience. I believe everyone has a gift... I think that's yours. You've tried me... and they're gone.

You actually have to study to learn... sitting around and making up the answers or going by what you skim on the board here is not really study. i.e. (this means "id est", Latin for "that is"... also meaning "in other words") start with reading the Catechism for what the Catholic Church teaches on a subject.

[ironmonk]

Getting back on track....

(everyone, please note the above bluntness is due to almost a year of on and off dialog with dairy)

[b]How do we know if we are in Christ's Church?[/b]
First we must define Church:

[b]What did the first Christians (say before 700 AD) believe "Church" meant?[/b]


Once we find that out... Which I believe to be the Catholic Church, please correct me with Early Church Father's writings if I am wrong.


Some people today say "Church" in the bible is many different things... but in this case, we must ask ourselves:

[b]Which definition of Church could be the one used by Christ and the Apostles in Scripture?[/b]

[b][color=blue]Christ is God, He cannot be wrong, He cannot lie.
Christ said the Church would never be overcome and would be guided in all truth.
Christ said that the Church would be like a city on a mountain which cannot be hidden.
St. Paul states that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. [/color][/b]

Therefore we can strike the invisible church because all of the denominations cannot be right because they all contradict each other on one point or another. Truth cannot contradict truth.

Also, it can't mean autonomy of the local church because Christ and the Apostles taught One Faith.... if there are multiple authorities then there is not One Faith.

Christ put Peter in charge of all Christ's Sheep... Which Church claims to have Peter as their first head Bishops... aka Pope.



If I am wrong, please show me with the Early Church Fathers (aka the first Christians). All facts that I have found over the last 25 years lead to the Catholic Church.



God Bless,
ironmonk