One True Church

[Katholikos]

[quote name='reyb' post='1295961' date='Jun 15 2007, 11:52 AM'][indent]May I know what are those books?[/indent][/quote]

If you mean these books --

[i]Four Witnesses, The Early Church in Her Own Words[/i], by Rod Bennett (Ignatius Press).

[i]The History of Christendom[/i] in six volumes by Dr. Warren H. Carroll (Christendom Press)

-- they can be ordered from Amazon or from the publisher (just goggle Ignatius Press, Christendom Press).

[quote]what is UR 2?[/quote]

UR is an abbreviation for [i]Unitatis Redintegratio[/i], one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. It's the decree on ecumenism. You can read it in English here:

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_sp.html"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_council...egratio_sp.html[/url]

Latin is the official language of the Universal (Catholic) Church. Don't be put off by it. Everything is translated into English and other world languages. But the names of documents written in Latin are often expressed in Latin. In the back of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 801-802, is a list of abbreviations.

Likos

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='reyb' post='1296285' date='Jun 15 2007, 08:54 PM'][indent]Thank you philip. I thought there are other books other than the NT of the Bible. [/indent][/quote]

Hello reyb -

What other books were you thinking of?

[jckinsman]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp[/url]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1295155' date='Jun 14 2007, 08:44 AM']The Universal (Catholic) Church was founded in 33 A,D. when Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, "You are Kepha (Greek for Rock; in English, Peter) and on this kepha (rock) I will build my Church, and the powers of death [RSV] gates of hell [KJV] shall not prevail against it" Mt 16:18.[/quote] This is a select interpretation, but being that we've gone through this over and over again, I'm not going to turn this thread into another pointless discussion with you.

[quote]Jesus promised the Apostles (the leaders of the Church) that He would send the Holy Spirit to remind them of all He had taught them, to lead them to all truth, and to be with them forever (John 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:1-5; Acts 1:1-2; et al.). [/quote]That's right, he promised it to all the Apostles, not just a select individual.

[quote]Jesus Himself promised that He would be with the Church "till the end of the world" Mt 28:20 KJV.[/quote] That's right, the pre-schism Church.

[quote]There was one unified Church until the end of the fifth century when the Oriental Orthodox went into schism. The rest of the Church remained united until the eleventh century, when the Eastern Orthodox joined in the schism. [/quote]The Oriental ORthodox didn't go into Schism, the Patriarch of the See of St. Mark was kept by force from attending the Council of Chalcedon, and was proclaimed a "Monophysite" and condemned, thou the Oriental Orthodox have never been Monophysites, but Miaphysites. The Council before it condemned Nestorias and St. Cyril was a hero... Pope Leo became Jealous of him and that's what started his Hersay.

Contrary to your thoughts, the Great Schism began as early as the 4th century and was formalized in 1054.

[quote]1054, the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople all announced that Rome was seperating itself from the other Churches; the schism was declared.[/quote]

[quote]A member of the Coptic Orthodox Church posts at phatmass, and he claims HIS is the true Church. The Catholic Church considers all the Orthodox Churches as sisters. They were indeed founded by the Apostles and were once part of the ancient, undivided Church. We pray that they will again be unitied with us under the umbrella of Peter and with each other. [/quote]Truth be told, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are much closer in doctrinal stances [infact most of the Saints and Scholars have said that it's just phraseology that is keeping the Eastern and Oriental Divided] then the Roman Catholics are to Oriental or Eastern Orthodox. The Pre-schism Church is the original undivided, universal and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, the one that he affirmed.

[quote]According to the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, the Church is where Peter and his successors are.[/quote] That's not true, even according to the Coptic Catholic Church Patriarch, Cyril Maker, the Council of Nicea wasn't affirmed around a particular Patriarch or Successor of St. Peter.

[quote]In his book, "The Divine element in the foundation of the Church", he wrote: "Did the Council of Nicea issue it's judgement according to Patriarchal orders or did it consider that it's decrees were in the name of the Patriarch? The Westerners claim this and it is a false claim, built on a weak argument, for according to the registered truth, Bishop Sylvester did not send letters to the Council at the time, but the Council informed the Church of Rome as well as the other Churches of it's decision as a Divine and Heavenly decision confirmed by the Holy Spirit"[/quote]

Reza

[reyb]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1296301' date='Jun 15 2007, 08:43 PM']Hello reyb -

What other books were you thinking of?[/quote]

[indent]I thought there are other books beside NT - that is why I asked because I want to see.[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1296478' date='Jun 16 2007, 04:30 AM']Reza[/quote]

[indent]So you are the orthodox church member. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1296291' date='Jun 15 2007, 08:13 PM']If you mean these books --


Latin is the official language of the Universal (Catholic) Church. Don't be put off by it. Everything is translated into English and other world languages. But the names of documents written in Latin are often expressed in Latin. In the back of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 801-802, is a list of abbreviations.

Likos[/quote]

[indent]I am referring to the letters written by the church and it was the NT Books, I thought there are other books. Yes in the back of Catechism there are so many abbr that I do not understand. Please bear me on this. TY[/indent]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='reyb' post='1296491' date='Jun 16 2007, 04:16 AM'][indent]So you are the orthodox church member. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?[/indent][/quote]

Why wouldn't I believe in the Holy Trinity? The Roman Catholic Church wasn't even at the Council of Constantinople and they believe in it, yet it was pretty much just Orthodox that attended the Council of Constantinople that affirmed the fullness of the Trinity.

Reza

[reyb]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1296498' date='Jun 16 2007, 07:16 AM']Why wouldn't I believe in the Holy Trinity? The Roman Catholic Church wasn't even at the Council of Constantinople and they believe in it, yet it was pretty much just Orthodox that attended the Council of Constantinople that affirmed the fullness of the Trinity.

Reza[/quote]

So your church believe in the Holy Trinity. Do your church have a declaration of faith like the catechism of Roman Catholic Church?

[reyb]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1295272' date='Jun 14 2007, 01:32 PM']Hi reyb,

Welcome. [b]I think in coming here you have to understand that we look at things differently than you and therefore when you read something it may not say what you think it does[/b]. Case in point, your reply to kiris does not address the issue he raises. We fully and completely hold scripture as the Word of God. But one must have the correct understanding, i.e. interpretatoin of it, not just the scriptures, to actually have the word of God. For instance there is a passage in Corinthians that speaks of baptizing the dead. Paul basically says why would they baptize the dead if Christ had not been raised. Now one could use this passage to justify the practice of baptizing the dead. But only the Mormons as far as I know do such a thing, because they have an incorrect understanding of the passage. You don't baptize the dead do you? So the point is that there are understandings that go along with scripture, carried throughout the ages in the Church, that are called sacred oral tradition. Paul says in 2 thes 2:15 "Hold fast to the TRADITIONS which you have recieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in writing from us.". Note that scripture itself is a tradition. But also Paul gives authority to these oral teachings that go along with scripture. In 2 Tim 2:2 he directs a passing along of teachings from one to another, not just in writing but also by word of mouth by the faithful witness of the Church. Tell me, what do you think is the pillar and support of the truth?

If scripture stood on it's own, there would not be thousands if not tens of thousands of Churches that proclaim Sola Scriptura, contradicting eachother. Nowhere in scripture does it say scripture alone! If it does please show me where. Once again we hold scripture very high and consider it the Word of God.

God bless[/quote]

Ok. ty. I have to read so many books.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='reyb' post='1296514' date='Jun 16 2007, 06:23 AM']So your church believe in the Holy Trinity. Do your church have a declaration of faith like the catechism of Roman Catholic Church?[/quote]

Not like the Catechism no, as the Catechism is frequently updated and changed.

[Budge]

Mar 9:38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Mar 9:40 [b]For he that is not against us is on our part.[/b]

THis shows that there is no one true church..

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Budge' post='1296537' date='Jun 16 2007, 07:43 AM']Mar 9:38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Mar 9:40 [b]For he that is not against us is on our part.[/b]

THis shows that there is no one true church..[/quote]

I guess I don't see what you see Budge... give me your exegesis of it.

[Budge]

[quote]he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.[/quote]

Think about it...this guy was NOT following the apostles...personally...

[SJP]

[quote name='Budge' post='1296537' date='Jun 16 2007, 10:43 AM']Mar 9:38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Mar 9:40 [b]For he that is not against us is on our part.[/b]

THis shows that there is no one true church..[/quote]


Far from it Budge. I think that you've come to an erroneous conclusion.

Jesus says: [quote]for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.[/quote]

So we have to conclude that the man who worked the miracle was indeed of Christ. However, how does this prove that the man was not also a part of the one true Church? We cannot conclude from the text that the man knowingly rejected the Apostles of Christ. Perhpas he was unaware of who they were, maybe he did not trust them at the time, perhaps Christ had other plans for him, perhaps the man joined the Apostles at a later date, maybe the man was not called to do the work of the Apostles, or perhaps he was not yet prepared.

These are all legitimate possibilities

In any event your conclusion does not follow.

Edited June 16, 2007 by SJP

[Katholikos]

[quote name='reyb' post='1296493' date='Jun 16 2007, 06:49 AM'][indent]I am referring to the letters written by the church and it was the NT Books, I thought there are other books. Yes in the back of Catechism there are so many abbr that I do not understand. Please bear me on this. TY[/indent][/quote]

reyb,

Thank you for clarifying this. I think you must be referring to what is called the "New Testament Apocrypha," the large body of writings that circulated among the early Churches but which the Church excluded from the New Testament when it was formed at the end of the fourth century. All of those writings are available on line. Just google 'New Testament Apocrypha.'

I understand the feelings of confusion that anyone experiences who first looks into the Catholic Church. I went through it, too. Not to worry; we understand. Take baby steps. The Church is 2,000 years old, and that's a lot of history to wade through. Believe me, it's worth the effort. If we overwhelm you, just let us know. We're here to help.

There are conflicting voices and messages. This is a great scandal in Christianity, which turns many people away. It turned me away, and I eventually became an atheist because of it. Many years later, I found the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Orthodox (such as Reza) and the Protestants (such as Budge) will try to convince you that the Catholic Church is false. They're like children who left home and now speak ill of their Mother. It will take time for you to sort it all out, but Jesus Christ founded only one Church -- and that is the Catholic Church, built upon the Rock of Peter.

Likos

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1296517' date='Jun 16 2007, 08:32 AM']Not like the Catechism no, as the Catechism is frequently updated and changed.[/quote]

The Orthodox have no catechism of similar statement of belief because the Orthodox Churches are divided -- split up into various ethnic and nationalistic entities and nothing or no one ties them together. One is either Russian Orthodox, or Greek Orthodox, or Ukrainian Orthodox, or Ethiopian Orthodox, and so on. They are separate entities. The Russian patriarch (head of the Russian Orthodox Church) speaks only to and for the ROC (Russian Orthodox Church), The Greek patriarch speaks only to and for the Greek Orthodox Church, etc.

Catholic means universal. The Catechism applies to all Catholics everywhere. The Pope speaks for and to all Catholics in the entire world, regardless of which of the 23 rites (or Churches) that make up the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church they may belong. God bless Benedict XVI!

Pray for the reunification of the One Undivided Church!

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1296787' date='Jun 16 2007, 12:29 PM']The Orthodox have no catechism of similar statement of belief because the Orthodox Churches are divided -- split up into various ethnic and nationalistic entities and nothing or no one ties them together.[/quote] Yet another ignorant statement that has no historical or otherwise truth. The Roman Catholic Church has "ethnic" entities [which you previously claimed you never even used the word "ethnic"] and Nationalistic Entities. What do you call Melkites, Chaldean, Coptic Catholic, etc? Those are Ethnic and Nationalistic entities, no different then Russian Orthodox in Eastern Orthodoxy. We can even find this throughout the Bible, when St. Paul addresses the different churches of particular cultures.

However, you're very misleading and deceitful, when you attempt to make the connection that those national and ethnic differences empower a particular people. When the Apostles converted people of different cultures, they didn't force them to abandon their culture, but conform it to the truth of Jesus Christ. Even the Roman Catholic Church involves a culture and nationalistic entity. Second, you're neglecting the Pre-Schism Church by forgetting that these "Ethnic and Nationalistic Entities" [as you claim they are] were founded by the Apostles themselves, as St. Mark founded the Egyptian Church, St. Thomas the Indian Church, etc.

[quote]One is either Russian Orthodox, or Greek Orthodox, or Ukrainian Orthodox, or Ethiopian Orthodox, and so on. They are separate entities. The Russian patriarch (head of the Russian Orthodox Church) speaks only to and for the ROC (Russian Orthodox Church), The Greek patriarch speaks only to and for the Greek Orthodox Church, etc. [/quote]Just as Cyril Maker speaks for the Coptic Catholic Church [which is connected to the Roman Catholic Church], etc. This is a very ignorant statement with a total dismissal for the Pre-Schism Church.

[quote]Catholic means universal. The Catechism applies to all Catholics everywhere. The Pope speaks for and to all Catholics in the entire world, regardless of which of the 23 rites (or Churches) that make up the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church they may belong. God bless Benedict XVI![/quote] It also keeps changing too and getting "updated" [if that's what you'd like to call it], and even changing it's tradition from time to time.

[quote]Pray for the reunification of the One Undivided Church!

Likos[/quote]

I definately believe we should, but we should also have a sound interpretation of history. Your claims about Orthodoxy as so distorted and lacking a sense of history, that they are misleading and slanderous, contributing to the divisions in the Pre-Schism Church.

Reza

[Lord Philip]

So Reyb,

Do you have any questions concerning the Catholic Church? I am curious to know what reasons you have for not being Catholic (forgive me, I am assuming you are not Catholic even though you have nowhere said so...but I think it is a fair assumption given this disclaimer).

I really would like to know.

God bless,

Philip

P.S. Gentlemen, perhaps in this thread we ought to refrain from issues that divide the Apostolic Churches. Just a suggestion.

[Budge]

[quote]So we have to conclude that the man who worked the miracle was indeed of Christ. However, how does this prove that the man was not also a part of the one true Church?[/quote]

He was part of the ekklesia, the only CHURCH that counts.

Your interpreation makes no sense because the apostles didnt even know him.