So which denomination do you think is the right one? And how do you think you’ll ever really know? Churches are full of people who think they’re in a “biblical” church. Are they deluded or purposely choosing the wrong church?
And the whole question of if the church is biblical is ridiculously. There wasn’t even a cannon of the bible until the 4th century (which we compiled) do the gospel was transmitted by hearing and traveling preachers as Jesus commanded.
So once again is the right denomination:
Baptist
Methodist
Church of Christ
Church of God
Unitarian
Presbyterian
Anglican
Episcopalian
Fundamentalist
Lutheran
Pentacostal
Seventh Day Adventist
Eastern Orthodox
Quaker
Mennonite
Or any of the other tens of thousands out there that think they’re right?
One, holy, Catholic Church.
Which is not an argument against the fact that the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As stated, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings (most of the Bible in fact) had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) And thus Scripture came before the church, and provided the **doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for it.
So which denomination do you think is the right one? And how do you think you’ll ever really know? Churches are full of people who think they’re in a “biblical” church. Are they deluded or purposely choosing the wrong church?
That also is simply not an argument against the manifest truth that it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the apostles were established as being of God, and not according to the Catholic means under its the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, which is essentially what cults promote.
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources)
And the reality is even under that model for assurance of belief then it still does not prevent the problem of variant interpretations of the Interpreter. Thus not only have those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basic literal hermeneutic long testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death, despite divisions on issues most RCs care little about - but Catholicism exists in schisms (besides with the EO) and sects.
I recently had a a debate with a follower of Pope Michael of Kansas, while plenty of your comrades here have no living pope. With opinions such as,
"Bergoglio the Heretic;"
"preaches and authors heresy;"
"the material and formal heretic;"
this fraud of a pope;
“an apostate,”
"he's not a Catholic;"
"Pope Frank..protestant;"
"The Impopester;"
"The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell;"
"...for which our poor, beleaguered pontiff is nothing more than the ultimate poster boy."
For rather than creating unity, the Roman magisterium fostered division in the ranks. As one poster stated: "The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ”
Thus as a poster here stated a while back: 1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner Thus we have threads,
Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
And since Rome manifestly considers proabortion, prosodomy public figures (Ted Kennedy Catholics) as members in life and in death, then you must own them as brethren, and would essentially have us do that same by joining Rome, or become part of one of your fractured groups. All claiming to represent the true members of a imaginary one (and unholy), Catholic Church.
The only one true church is the mystical body of Christ which the Spirit baptizes one into (1 Co. 12:13) upon regeneration by heart-purifying faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and to which Christ is married, (Ephesians 5:30-32) for it alone only and always consists only of true believers, while the organic fellowships which believers are normally part of end up being admixtures of wheat and chaff.
We are thus in the days akin the declension of Israel, in which a relative remnant stands unified in heart toward God and in essential salvific Truths. One testimony to that is that by the grace of God I have about 30,000 audio tapes (broadcasting day and night in our apt over FM) of sermons covering about 300 years, but the grace of God. Very little disagreement, with predestination being the main one, such dispute even the pope could not settle.
How I long for the good ol' days of the rack and the Iron Maiden...
--Wannabe_Catholic_Dude(Hail Mary!)
Poorly.
Why do I claim this?
Well, if done right, Mary could stay in heaven and not have to appear on earth from time to time to try to straighten things out.
Pass the Magic Cookie!