Would you care to share what you think is meant by these terms?   I am preparing my thoughts on these questions and I shall post later today.    I am approaching it from 2 viewpoints.

(A)   What I think those that use such terminology mean.    I expect that my perceptions will probably be challenged and I shall learn.  However, I will expose what is within and put it out there for examination.

(B)   What I personally feel these terms mean.   Again I shall expose my inner self a bit and hopefully there shall be some good growing experiences here.

Shall we be bold?    I will try.....

Regards

Rita

It's as if the ones using them aren't so must as saying we are true, free and biblical but you're not.

.

that may be because of you, and what your used to, being your denomination is , what it is. im not criticizing the RC, it simple is what it is. so dont take this post the wrong way.

I do think that the people that use these terms are saying that others are not.  It seems to be a put down in a way.  I think what they are saying is that a "true" Christian believes that Jesus died for their sins and rose again and a Bible church is one that believes that the word of God is true and without mistake, inspired by the Holy Spirit.  I'm not saying this for a fact - just what I think they are saying.  I'm also not saying it's wrong to believe that way ......... 

buford, in some cases im sure it is, and in some its not. noone can say they or others are a 'true Christian' , its not our place to say, we dont push God off his throne...(my opinion)

Yes, I agree, well said. The church I'm a member of would describe itself using those terms. In order to become a member one must first profess to have been born again, to have accepted the risen Jesus into their heart as their personal Lord and Savior.

mornigcalm,

these saying are good, but not for a man to make a hoop for another man to jump through, if you get my drift.

No, I don't really get your drift. Can you please clarify. Thank you.

All three terms refer to specific Protestant groups. 

The Free Church is a branch of the Scottish Presbyterian Church.  It was a split over who had the authority to appoint bishops. The Free Church did not want the King appointing bishops. Thomas Chalmers was the leader of the movement.

Bible church is a term used by fundamentalist churches, including many Baptists, as in 'there is no interpretation, just the straight bible'. 

The True Church movement is a way certain Baptists and anaBaptists describe the way that they are part of the apostolic succession. It is a way of a secessionist group claiming apostolic authority, even though they had split from an earlier church body.  

mc

"In order to become a member one must first profess to have been born again"

.

 in my opinion ,that sort of thing is a man made hoop, for this 'membership'

.

There is this riff that I got from my personal Jesus, Robert Anton Wilson (Chaos be Upon Him).

We are domesticated primates.  Now, our undomesticated cousins, do you recall how they mark their territory?

As domesticated primates, we are more 'civilized' than that, we are a more visually-oriented species, yes we mark our territory by yammering and yelling, but we also do it with things like ink and words and contracts and laws and slogans etc etc etc.

So, stuff like True Christian and Bible Church make sense that way.  They are territorial markers.

The real fun thing is to then start applying that to OTHER aspects of life...and see what happens :3

We believe our church to be a simple unit of Christ's church universal. The invisible church, we hold, is comprised of every true Christian who has ever lived, lives now, or will live in time to come. Biblically, it was Jesus himself who said, ""You're absolutely right. Take it from me: Unless a person is born from above, it's not possible to see what I'm pointing to—to God's kingdom."" - John 3: 3b (MSG). We believe that we are led by Christ in striving to restrict membership to those we believe are born again.

membership to what?, and what are the guidliines? people can be born again, in such a manner that is unreconiable to another, in my opinion. seems judgy, thats  the thing, who can say, I am a true Christian, or they are true Christians?, are people allowed to go into the church without the membership?, probably, so is it some kind of 'virtual' upper room?

james

""Bible church is a term used by fundamentalist churches, including many Baptists, as in 'there is no interpretation, just the straight bible'.""

yeah, thats sounds right, i feel some ppl interpret so much ,  some groups couldnt agree on the color of ..............
 

don't understand what you are trying to explain, continue explaining. 

An Aside, Catholicism is not a denomination, I know you think it is, so do others including some Catholics who don't know better.  Denominationalism is a by-product of non-Catholic Christianity, of Protestantism.

its self-explanitory, i think sometimes WC doesnt speak english, maybe there needs to be a new language made for this site.

If my poorly worded first post is unclear I originally meant,

I've always found these slogans funny.  It's as if the ones using them aren't so much as saying we are true, free and biblical, but that you're not true, free and biblical.

but , thats probably because of you, not them

Thanks for the historical origins, well aware of them, but I was hoping to discover if others actual knew the origin/movements which  are embracing the terms so fervently today.

Q. What is your first gut feeling, your impression when a Catholic uses the term "The Church"? Do you feel included or excluded?

With a focus to "Bible Church",

St. Jerome is quoted as saying, "ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ" where does that leave, "The Church" so often protested against?  Is is not "biblical"? is it not truly "Bible Church" ?

me, personnally, i belong to all denominations, even the jewish synagogues and muslim mosques too, these phrases are abused by ppl though, on both side of the coin, yours and theirs. for example. if someones says "im a free bible person" but its coming from a place in their heart that puts down someone else and feeds their pride, then its no good. or if someone says "they are a free bible person" but its coming form a place of despise for them because they hold to their doctrine so much that they refuse to see the truth in scriptures, then its bad. and if someone says "im a free bible person" but it comes from a place in their heart of truth thay feel the scriptures are to be read, and the purpose is to share that truth with someone. then isnt it good?

I think I just did, can't wait to read your reply

Q. What is your first gut feeling, your impression when a Catholic uses the term "The Church"? Do you feel included or excluded?

When the Catholic Church says the Protestant church is 'deficient' and not fully participating in salvation, then I feel excluded. I found it interesting that in Quebec, when they talk about the world's religions, they say there is "Islam, Judaism and Catholicism". I often performed second marriages for divorced Catholics. Their first question was always "is this a Christian church?" They didn't know there was a Christianity beyond Catholicism.

I would disagree with the statement that " Catholicism is not a denomination. Denominationalism is a by-product of non-Catholic Christianity, of Protestantism". 

The understanding of denominations did arise during the Protestant Reformation. Given that Roman Catholicism only emerged after the Great Schism in 1054 with the rest of the Orthodox Communion, to claim it is the one true church does not take into account all of its history. The great schism arose over which of the patriarchs had primacy, which is why the Pope  is called the Primate of the Church. It is a truth claim which the Orthodox communion still rejects. It was not a schism over who had a monopoly on salvation. By the modern definition of denominations, it is one among many. Having said that,  I doubt the Pope will ever accept that definition.

Hi- St Ignatius--I Agree the church is the Catholic Christain Church of Jesus. But I do not agree it is the Roman Catholic church.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biblical Understanding of the Word Catholic

Jesus commissioned his apostles with the words, "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19–20). As Frank Sheed reminds us, "Notice first the threefold ‘all’—all nations, all things, all days. Catholic, we say, means ‘universal.’ Examining the word universal, we see that it contains two ideas: the idea of all, the idea of one. But all what? All nations, all teachings, all times. So our Lord says. It is not an exaggerated description of the Catholic Church. Not by the wildest exaggeration could it be advanced as a description of any other" (Theology and Sanity, 284).

Jesus used the word church twice in the Gospels, both in Matthew. He said, "I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). He didn’t say "churches" as though he were building subdivisions, nor did he imply that it would be an invisible church made up of competing groups. He was going to build a visible, recognizable Church, as shown by the fact that he appointed Peter to lead it in his absence. And in Matthew 18:17, Jesus said that if one brother offends another they were to take it to "the Church." Notice the article "the" referring to a specific entity. Not "churches" but one visible, recognizable Church that can be expected to have a recognizable leadership with universal authority.

One can see the sad state of "Christendom" today by comparing it to Jesus’ words about "the Church." If a Methodist offends a Baptist, or a Presbyterian offends a Pentecostal, which church do they take it to for adjudication? This alone demonstrates the problem when 30,000 denominations exist outside the bounds of the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Jesus intended there to be one universal, authoritative, visible—and, yes, Catholic—Church to represent him on earth until his return.I agree that all who would follow christ Jesus  belong to ONE church. Jesus Is Are Head--- airclean33--God Bless
 

totally understand this ignorance and yet also, innocence.  And because there is an obvious element of igorance I wouldn't suggest within there isn't also some insight and perhaps those you speak of intrinsically know of orthodoxy and are not asking of another Christianity but of orthodoxy. During the last century (especially the last 40 years) many Catholics have been poorly catechised and this is one of several primary reasons why they fall away from the faith for something else you've pointed out as 'deficient' in some way.

and I would expect no less RevJames as to state otherwise would, perhaps, challenge your own teaching authority.

Ah but schism of East and West is not the same as the development of denominationalism under Western Protestantism some 550 years later. I understand why you draw upon the Great Schism to justify denominationalism but would not assume in the least this makes the case for allowable denominationalism. 

John Paul II described the schism as that of two lungs that once again need to breathe as one. 

I will have to disagree. the Great Schism arose because of reasons less related to doctrine and more so because of culture and distance.

Protestants have trouble understanding that both Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians belong the church that was there from the beginning.

Please note that I am not criticizing the Protestants or their churches (I was a Protestant for years).    Once the printing press became available and people were able to read the Bible themselves, it was almost inevitable that certain groups would decide that much of that Catholics & Orthodox practiced was "added on."   And it was added on, during the chaotic early years of Christianity, when all sorts of interpretations of the Gospels were floating around.   By the time of the Protestant Reformation, all these early struggles were long since put to rest.

Catholics and Orthodox sometimes say, we didn't leave you, you left us.

I didn't ask if you feel excluded or included because you're being called 'deficient', you added this to the equation.

but back to the original question, and thank you for answering it the best you can. I would like to clarify something.  When a Catholic uses the term "The Church" they do so not to exclude others, but it is interesting how perception on our part forms opinion hence the title of this discussion.

I think another word for that is 'history', and we all know who writes history :3

"Matthew. He said, "I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). He didn’t say "churches" as though he were building subdivisions, nor did he imply that it would be an invisible church made up of competing groups. He was going to build a visible, recognizable Church, as shown by the fact that he appointed Peter to lead it in his absence. And in Matthew 18:17, Jesus said that if one brother offends another they were to take it to "the Church." Notice the article "the" referring to a specific entity. Not "churches" but one visible, recognizable Church that can be expected to have a recognizable leadership with universal authority.

One can see the sad state of "Christendom" today by comparing it to Jesus’ words about "the Church." If a Methodist offends a Baptist, or a Presbyterian offends a Pentecostal, which church do they take it to for adjudication? This alone demonstrates the problem when 30,000 denominations exist outside the bounds of the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Jesus intended there to be one universal, authoritative, visible—and, yes, Catholic—Church to represent him on earth until his return.I agree that all who would follow christ Jesus  belong to ONE church. Jesus Is Are Head--- airclean33--God Bless"

airclean,

maybe in a way, man is still ripping up his garments, and gambling for some.

You bet.  

Hello St. Ignatius.....
Yes indeed I do agree you have been bold and open and I hope others do so as well.
Ok ....as promised ...lets see if I can contribute to this discussion.
I said I would answer from two viewpoints so here goes.
........
From the viewpoint of what I feel that those that sort of terminology mean:
Here I will start with that I was raised Roman Catholic and later moved on to an evangelical denomination.   I became an active member in a Pentcostal church.   There you go ...open and upfront as promised.   I feel that I spent enough years there to be able to make some general statements.
-  In regards to "true christians" .... that would refer to a person that has made a verbal repentance of their sins and has verbally accepted Jesus as their saviour.   That is referred to as being "born again".   They believe there is no "works" involved to make up for their sins.
Anyone that expresses a viewpoint other than this is "suspected" of not being a "true christian".  These sorts of words are used because we are not supposed to judge ...but ..well ... you get the effect..
-  In regards to "Free Church" .... wow ... that is a difficult one.   The definition seems to change with context and circumstance.   "Free" usually translates down to you are free to believe just as we do.   "Free church" is sometimes more publically preached to believe and worship as we happen to see fit.   It is supposed to convey some sort of freedom from some disagreeable aspects of ritual, doctrine, or tradition.    Another meaning of "free church" is that there is supposed to be no "man" between us and "Father God" and that only Jesus fills that role.   In my experience pastors often seem to blur that line.
-  In regards to "Bible Church" ... now there is a loaded one.   As I understand it the official position is that only the bible will be used as a basis of belief.   Any belief is supposed to have a considered and appropriate biblical basis.   There is no other accepted source for the belief and the church's interpretation is the yardstick.   From my experience that about sums it up.
.......
Now for my personal views:
-  In regards to "true christian".    Yes I do understand the acknowledgement of personal sin and the acceptance and work of Jesus to make right what I cannot and to be made over spiritually into a new creation.     However I take it further, to me ...if there are no changes in how I treat my fellow human beings and how I treat this planet then I feel I am not living as a Christian.  Let me try and explain a bit more.   I don't so much see "Christian" as an attainment but rather more of an active process like breathing.   To me ...being a "true christian" is a constantly active thing and not a static label.   Who gets to be a "true christian"? ...... well ... those that breathe like one.   I do hope that makes some sort of sense.   There seems to be a scripture somewhere that those that have not the "law" but sense and do it anyways having then fulfilled the law.   That doesnt leave me much room to go around deciding about others.   It seems to me that Jesus summed it all up with just two laws and for this simple gal .... I find that breath enough....
-  In regards to "Free Church".    This would be a church where I can come ....warts, faults and all ....and be accepted "just as I am".    A church where I am judged on how I live my convictions and beliefs rather than being judged on how I look.   A church where I can be me and others can be who they are.   The focus is on the fruits of the Spirit.....   It doesn't have to be a perfect church.  Better it is not as I would feel very out of place (and please...no false humility intended)
-  In regards to "Bible Church".    I value the bible so very much and I feel tha when used properly it has much to say to help us along.   However I feel there is more.   That more is what God puts into our hearts.   I feel that whatever I happen to resolve to do should not be in conflict with biblical principles.  Now let me say that I feel that speaks to the "spirit of the law" more so than the "letter of the law".   To me ... a "bible church" will carefully use the bible as a foundation but not impose interpretation.    I would be careful to point out that personal interpretations cannot be viewed as a license to do whatever a person wants when it clearly violates general biblical principles.   This is a hard one to explain and I hope you have caught the gist of what I mean.
.....
All in all .... I am more concerned with getting me "right" than I am with getting you "right".   If there is anything I can do to help and encourage someone in a positive way then that is my goal.   I have no desire to circumvent a person's free will and impose my beliefs upon them.
.....
There you go ...open and honest though I feel I expressed it in a clumsy way.   I do hope you hear more of the heart of the words as you interpret them and that heart helps you understand what I really tried to say.   Ok .... have at it an help me learn!
Regards
Rita
 

There are churches that are as old or older than the Roman Catholic Church (coptic, Syrian Orthodox, and so on).  Roman Catholicism changed the Apostles'' Creed.  Roman Catholicism set up a structure extremely different from the church described in Acts, and a structure that often contradicts the teachings of Jesus, such as not judging others, so I believe I have adequate grounds for perceiving the Roman Catholic Church as a denomination within catholicism.  Considering the actions of the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries, it is extremely ironic to have representatives of that denomination describe other denominations as deficient.  In the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants did not leave the catholic church; the catholic church kicked them out, just as the Anglicans kicked out the Methodists later on.

Free Church:  According to an Evangelical Free Church Pastor, Free  Churches rejected the authority of the established state church -- we often teased him that there are no evangelicals in his church since it was evengelical free.  True Christians -- those who decide who true Christians are automcatically violate one of Jesus' teachings.  Bible Church -- one that claims its interpretation of its English Translation of the Bible and the parts of the Bible that are chosen by it are the correct guidelines for faith.

When you refer to the Coptic Church (which simply is Egyptian) and Syriac or Orthodox Church you are refering to the Catholic Church of the early centuries.  The title "Roman" Catholic and popish and Romanist were the creation of Protestants who desired to differentiate themselves from the first church Catholic some 1600 years after Christ, while still claiming to be Catholic themselves.

I know this is very simplistic but in stating Catholic and Orthodox were one for the first 1,000 years of Christianity it is not an inaccuracy.

can we talk about this perception, can you explain further why you think this to be so.

In what way does the structure judge others? does it judge a final salvation of souls in your opinion?

Which actions? and for the record, I did  not first use the word "deficient" someone else did in reply to a question I asked him.

No doubt this is one version of events have you read others? How did you receive your historical instruction on the period?

which happened to be another Protestant parent denomination at the time,  The Anglican church in England.

now that is funny.

I see the truth of it , a wee bit of pun

St Ignatius, you are forgetting the difference, in common usage, between catholic and Catholic.

All denominations are part of the catholic church.  The Catholic Church (which is usually used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, a sub-group of the catholic church) is not the one true church for those who follow a different path.  IMO for ANY group of Christians to declare that the way they describe/practice the faith is the only "true" or right way is nothing short of arrogance.

I don't believe I am RevGord but I'm more concerned with the orginal usage of say the "New Testament" Church others refer me to so often.

When we examine the word catholic from the Greek and when we read the Early Church Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Augustine and Vincent of Lerin (who didn't see eye to eye with Augustine always) there is a quite a different understanding from our modern rendition.

I partly agree and partly disagree. All Protestant denominations are insofar catholic because of the imperfect unity they still share with the One Church Catholic (you may label Roman)

catholic is more than simply saying we are universal geographically or that we agree in an invisible church spiritually.  The origin of the word catholic truly means according to the whole as in doctrinally whole, a universal agreement on what we profess and believe as Christians and a clear understanding on who decides what you or others may claim as "essential" or primary as well as secondary or less important.

cata-holos

I forget which paper it is at the moment, but the Church Catholic has explained at length the purpose of those other communities you point to and it has done so in the positive not the negative therefore it is not arrogant by any means.

I apologize for not responding sooner airclean and thought it very appropriate to do so now especially after my response to GordW on the meaning of catholic or Catholic.

In quoting Frank Sheed I think you misunderstand him as the quotation does not further your position, on the contrary it denies it. 

continue reading p.289 

"He [Jesus] established upon earth - one kingdom [mystery Church] with a smaller body of officials serving the great body of plain citizens, and among the official one who is head over the rest and the servant of all. so the kingdom was, when the Holy Spirit descended upon it at Pentecost. So it still is, So till the end of the world it will be."

Q. Frank notes the time of Pentecost, who do you think he was referring to as the "head over the rest" at this time? 

I don't disagree with the logic of it except in your thinking Frank Sheed (a Roman Catholic layperson) or our Lord Jesus, meant anything but the Catholic [Roman] Church as the structure, body being raised, [newly added] -> which is a false belief.

In Mere Christianity, evangelical C.S. Lewis, speaks of a hallway with many doors.  To symbolise Catholicism correctly, it is not one of the doors, it is the hallway.

bump

Personally I see that only the born again Christians (regardless of denomination)  understand that the body of Christ, that which we call the church and that which God the Father calls the bride, is united in oneness of Spirit and not flesh traditions of men.

can you imagine Jesus telling Nicodemus who was a high religious leader that you are not going to see the kingdom of God unless your born again, man what a slap in the face that was.

That is why I have always said that there is a True Church, a Church within a Church that spans across all denominations , A Spiritual Body, breathing and Living, all united under one Spirit and Father.

the Letter kills

traditions constrain

power corrupts

But only The Spirit of God Gives Life and Liberty

my first experience in this new freedom was from religious rule

When you refer to the Coptic Church (which simply is Egyptian) and Syriac or Orthodox Church you are refering to the Catholic Church of the early centuries.  The title "Roman" Catholic and popish and Romanist were the creation of Protestants who desired to differentiate themselves from the first church Catholic some 1600 years after Christ, while still claiming to be Catholic themselves.

 I could be wrong, but my understanding is that there are several old Christian communities in the Middle East that go back to the first Century and participated in the councils of the third century, but did not place themselves under the authority of a central institution such as the Orthodox or Catholic Churches.  This includes the Coptic Church in Ethiopia.  This would make them part of the catholic, but not necessarily Catholic church.

I know this is very simplistic but in stating Catholic and Orthodox were one for the first 1,000 years of Christianity it is not an inaccuracy.

 Just a bit of a stretch.

can we talk about this perception, can you explain further why you think this to be so.

 I was taught in seminary (an Anglican, Roman Catholic and United Church seminary) that part of the split is in the wording of the last line of the Apostle's Creed in which the Roman branch added 'and the Son'.  Is this wrong?  As to the structure, Acts describes a church that is loosely organized with the council in Jerusalem responsible for adjucating conflicts.  The Roman congregation is mostly significant because of its proximity to the centre of power for the Roman Empire.  A highly centralized structure with many layers of authority seems to me to be inconsistent with the life and teachings of Jesus.

In what way does the structure judge others? does it judge a final salvation of souls in your opinion?

 Did or did not the Church in Rome claim to have the power to save the souls of the departed through the use of indulgences?  I know this is no longer the practice of the Church.  Our local Bishop often has a column in our local paper offering his judgement on certain people and practices.  Does the Church in Rome deem almost other denominations to be deficient?  The Church in Rome does not blatantly express any judgement on the final salvation of souls, but it seems to imply many other judgements.

Which actions? and for the record, I did  not first use the word "deficient" someone else did in reply to a question I asked him.

 The person who used `deficient` was  referring to what used to be official Church in Rome policy.  How many thousands of heretics were killed and persecuted in part because of the desire of the authorities in Rome to suppress and exterminate any opposition to their official doctrine. (just lost access to my question mark on the keyboard).  Once Protestant churches gained the support of local rulers, they also participated in the persecution and execution of religious opposition.  Groups like the Anabaptists were killed by everybody else.  The Catholic Church in Quebec formed a partnership with the Union Nationale Party and the Anglo elite to keep French Canadians in a servant mode of relationship -- a major reason most Quebecois more or less abandoned the Church.  I don`t have time to add more examples.

No doubt this is one version of events have you read others? How did you receive your historical instruction on the period?

While at seminary, I read a book by a Catholic author on heresies over the ages from the first century through to the Protestant Reformation.  The way he described the Reformation, religious protesters were given the choice of accepting official church doctrine or being excommunicated, which, to me, is the same as being kicked out.  Luther did not want to form a new church -- he just wanted to reform the church in which he was raised and trained to be a priest.  Later, the Anglicans kicked out the Methodists, but Wesley died seeing himself as still being an Anglican.

Free Church:  According to an Evangelical Free Church Pastor, Free  Churches rejected the authority of the established state church

which happened to be another Protestant parent denomination at the time,  The Anglican church in England.

 Also the Lutheran Church in Scandanavia which is the origin of the Evangelical Free Church movement, according to one of its pastors who was a colleague of mine.

I think this refers to the Nicene Creed rather than the Apostles' Creed. Wikipedia's "filioque" article is a convenient source for more detail.

Thank you, RAN.  My mistake.

Silly question, but does this not show that the Bible/Gospels are subject to interpretation, and can change over time?

IT

Russ

yet a very important distinction.  the Apostle's Creed is most historical, the Roman Baptismal Rite first and foremost, yet those outside the community have expropriated it for their own usage and revising the original meaning.

an important point would be, subsequent great council(s) defining doctrine hash out the truth of the filioque and make the addition of the filioque to our credo entirely valid.  This is not held to by Catholics alone much discussion amongst the Eastern Orthodox, filioque was NOT an original argue leading to division of East and West. 

No, no stretch at all just the historical truth of it

Q.  Did or did not the Church in Rome claim to have the power to save the souls of the departed through the use of indulgences? 

A. NO it never did. It was abuses of doctrine that made the headlines not the correct teaching and practice.   see- Myths About Indulgences

Q. Does the Church in Rome deem almost other denominations to be deficient?

A. Define deficient.  If you mean to say does the Church consider those outside her physical embrace to not be part of the Christian community you would be wrong.  The Church admits to the existence of Christian communities in "diaspora" (my word not the Church's') Deficient is framing things in the negative and hence offensive without a doubt.  The Church is always directing us to the family relationship of God.  Our separation as brethren is not of God or godly in anyway. Therefore, we must strive to throw off the attitude which seeks isolation as comfort to visible unity which more correctly reflects the reality of Trinity One God.

Final words,

Jim wrote

"The Church in Rome does not blatantly express any judgement on the final salvation of souls, but it seems to imply many other judgments."

I respond with,

if this be the case then every Catholic would be taught to run around crying out "I'm save already, I'm saved already" by merely saying I believe in Jesus on one particular day and accept him into my heart on that day.  Because Catholics do not do this and do not confuse the teaching of assurance with know-ability we naturally do not nor does the Church teach in judging of souls outside of fully unity. 

Can you see the contradiction if we did?  If I, do not claim to have the authority to publicly pronounce my own final salvation then how can I or anyone whether they be laity or clergy claim to pronounce your own salvation or lack of?  What is true is a discernment of God's will but even that is finite in our understanding.  

(I do not belong to the Church in Rome, this has never been it's official title but I think Iunderstand why you chose this term)

St. Ignatius

Thank you for your illuminating postings on Catholic Church history and stances etc.

However I must respectfully disagree with the premise that (excuse the wording please) that the Roman Catholic Church is the first and true church.   I disagree with the idea that the old Jewish institution priesthood was replaced with a new institution priesthood.  In my opinion the scripture that refers to a "holy priesthood" is to include all of us and not a select subset.   Was there not an apostle selected by the others via a draw following the death of Judas?    Then how did Paul get to declare himself an apostle?    I am sorry but a lot does not add up. 

I am also dismayed by how the Catholic Church teaches and then changes doctrine and then claims that it was never their official position in the first place.   A personal experience of mine was back when our second child was born in 1980.    I dusted off the old catechisms from my mother and reviewed the bits about babies and the place called limbo where unbaptized babies go.   Imagine my surprise when I went to the course for parents and was told by the priest that had all changed.  I asked and he did say that was taught at one time but not anymore.    Seems a retreat to me.....  That is one example and there are others.  

Now on another front.   As I have stated I am a transgendered person.   The present pope likened what I am to be as devastating and wrong as the deforestation of the rainforest.    That is quite a comfort to me.   Sort of makes me a super leper.    Of course we can talk about how my being transgender is the evil and it is not me personally.   This is my core being and it is personal so yes I do take it personally, actually, how can I take it otherwise.   I am not welcome in the Catholic Church, the so called universal church.    Seems like it is not universal enough to include me.

This I ask .... before defending the Catholic Church's stance against transgenderism please provide you personal view and the reason for it if you would be so kind.

I have often wondered what scholarly work the Catholic Church has to explain their stance.     There is so much shrouded in secrecy and obscurity that I doubt I would ever get such an answer.   Yet I live this truth every moment of each and every day.    The Catholic Church is not the only denomination that fails to provide us transgender persons with the answer we deserve.   Indeed the denomination that left me behind would not answer that question either.

In my opinion there is one true and free church and that kingdom is within just as Jesus said.   There I am free to love Jesus and follow him just as I am.   There he is free to change me from within.     That has poven to be sufficient for me.    Do I desire to be part of a congregation somewhere and to sit under the care of a pastor?   With all my heart I desire that!     Being set aside, made to feel like a leper, unclean, unworthy to mix with the rest, not being included.   That feeling is called UNWANTED.

There is my situation .... thank you allowing me to share.   I do hope this helps you understand in some small part why I cannot support the notion of the Roman Catholic Church being the one true church and definately not a church where I would be welcome.

St. Ignatius ... you have been most respectful here and if any of my words seem judgemental or harsh concerning you personally I apologize as that is not my intent.

As for how my words might be taken by the Catholic Church, I would hope that they would have the maturity and wisdom to actually hear the cry of the heart that has spoken them.

You said before you would be glad to accept a hug....

HUGS

Rita