[
Replying to marco]
RightReason wrote:
We should trust the Church for the same reason we trusted Jesus Christ when He walked the earth over 2000 years ago – as a matter of faith.
And people DO trust their churches.
But their churches aren’t the Church established by Jesus Christ. Only the Catholic Church can trace her roots back to Peter, the first Pope. If you are accepting Jesus existed when history is to have said He existed and you accept by faith what has been passed down via Tradition and you have accepted the Bible that came from this Church you are believing He established, then it is only logical to acknowledge the Catholic Church as the one Christ established. No one else fits the bill.
Also, you are incorrect; most do
not trust their churches. Most Christian denominations, if not all, except the Catholic Church do not believe in the authority of their churches. They do not claim their churches have papal infallibility. They do not believe their churches are incapable of teaching error in regards to teachings on matters of faith and morals. They deny such authority! They think it blasphemous to acknowledge this authority, even though it comes from Christ’s own words.
Those are a few of the illogic and red flags that I would think would bother a person. We never simply believe something completely on faith, rather we are always expected to use both faith and reason. This means only the Catholic Church is the logical conclusion to being the one, true, faith. The other ones don’t even claim to be the one true faith –they don’t want it!
That is why we are arguing.
But that is what I am pointing out makes no sense. Why would anyone trust a Christian church that didn’t even pop up until the 1900’s? Why would anyone insist they are getting it right if they don’t even believe their church is free from teaching error? Say what now?
It seems obvious that Christ was talking about pain and punishment, but over the centuries wise men have extracted nectar from threat, fire and brimstone.
If one wants/desires to know Truth, why would it be wise for someone to change it? If I truly want to know the Truth, I shouldn’t be happy if someone thinks they are doing me a favor by either sugar coating it or telling me something they think I want to hear. The truth is, I can’t right now fully understand the concept of eternal hell, but that doesn’t mean I want to be lied. Also, just because something is difficult for me to understand doesn’t mean I need to make it easier for me to understand by changing what it is. Why would I put limits on what I think God can do in order to be right/fair/just? A bit arrogant to think I know better than the master of the universe what makes sense. I don’t know what is to come, but I know the one who knows, so I shouldn’t need to change what He tells me and reduce it to something I think makes more sense. I am confident it will be perfectly clear soon.
I learned in my religious lessons what hell was, in more ways than one.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this. I am sorry if little Marco along with being taught the truth about hell was not also taught about God’s love and mercy and beauty and wisdom of His Church.
RightReason wrote:
Why would one believe George Fox got it right? Or Calvin?
I don't believe they got it right any more than did Henry viii when he destroyed the monasteries, thereby acquiring valuable real estate. However, when people like Savonarola attacked the bad habits of the church they did get some things right Luther may had been rather coarse, but he wasn't completely wrong in attacking the sale of indulgences.
He wasn’t wrong in attacking corrupt priests at all. But he was absolutely wrong in leaving Christ’s Church and starting his own. He also was very wrong in a lot of other things he believed. Just Google some of the weird stuff Martin Luther believed. St. Catherine of Sienna too was familiar with some of the corrupt men in the Church and she boldly let them have it. She pushed for reform and called them out in their errors, but she remained faithful to Christ’s Church. She knew how tragic it would have been to throw the baby out along with the filthy bathwater. Martin Luther however went on to add words to Sacred Scripture as well as change theology to justify his own personal sins.
I think our Holy Mother has to admit, sometimes, "peccavi" but I accept that God can act through imperfect vessels.
But isn’t leaving and starting a new church actually not accepting that God can act thru imperfect vessels? Isn’t that actually not believing or trusting that God can keep His Church in tact? Thinking you somehow know better? Or thinking God incapable of protecting His Church?
The problem we have here, ironically, isn't ignorance or heresy: it is sincerity.
Hmmm. . . I think for many of the original heretics and so called “reformers� it might have started off with sincerity or good intentions, but ended up being about pride, arrogance, thinking one knows best, and lack of obedience and trust.
RightReason wrote:
He told Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my church�.
Alas, this iron declaration can also be read in many ways, though of the many candidates for claiming truth I do think the Church best.
I know you do. You have said this before. And why do you? Perhaps no longer due to faith, but reason, eh?
I like the pun on Peter's name but in my scepticism I ask whether the Lord ever said such a thing. But if he did Francis has an important role today.
Yes, amazing isn’t it all? You remind me a little of the main character in Brideshead Revisited. He continually said, “Well, I know it’s all bunk, but also continued to recognize the awesomeness of it all if it weren’t actually bunk And he kept noticing how many times the Church did actually seem to be on to something. He ended with wondering could it possibly be?�
If only to quote was to speak truth.
Sometimes it is.
. . . and as human beings don't we have to believe that?
