A stranger asks for the Catholic Church

[pocohombre]

For clarification,
Dominus Jesus doesn’t say all who are baptised are members of the Catholic Church.
A trinitarian baptism makes one baptised.
[LIT]
*]Baptism in the Catholic Church makes one a Catholic. It doesn’t mean one will be a good Catholic, nor remain Catholic
*]Baptism outside the Catholic Church doesn’t make one Catholic nor gurantee one will be Catholic.
*]Lutherans are NOT part of the Catholic Church.

When there is a conundrum something is awry in the mix .On one hand we are told we are “separated brethren”, baptized into Christ. So we say thank you.Then we are told it is only because or somehow thru the Catholic Church that it is so, that we are under your “umbrella”. Hmm, OK if you want to take credit, and certainly some credit is due to our forefathers. But then we are told if we know of the CC and enter not, we are lost. What ? So it seems someone is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Can discerning Orthodox and Protestant really be “separated brethren” when there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church ? Vatican II seems to be nice to us brethren in one sentence (to please ecumenism, even Cyprian ?) and the next sentence we are lost unless ignorant ( to please hardliners ?). Do I have it right ,despite not using the latin lingo for the two ideas ?

 

[JonNC]

It’s Not my opinion. You know me by now, I can always back up what I say,.

all emphasis mine

"Strictly speaking, a Catholic is a person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church or has been received into the Church after a valid non-Catholic baptism ( i.e. they are not Catholic by virtue of baptism).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but “in body” not “in heart.” (CCC 837)

[http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-the-churchs-social-teachings-for-example-put (http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-the-churchs-social-teachings-for-example-put) "

Jon,

see all that language?

Baptism

• doesn’t automatically make someone Catholic.
• baptism in the Catholic Church makes one Catholic
• valid baptism by non Catholics that person must be received “into” the Catholic Church for that person to be Catholic. They aren’t automatically Catholic by their baptism.
• then we get into all the other issues

You’re right, Steve. It isn’t your opinion, but, pending the POV’s of other Catholics, the opinion of your communion. And you do well to defend that view.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Since there is no such thing as the “Orthodox Church” any more than there is such a thing as the “Protestant Church”, I would ask them which Orthodox Church they are looking for; Greek, Russian, Byzantine, Independent, American…

I don’t see this as an issue at all.

Okay, I understand that we as Catholics are supposed to argue against Orthodoxy, but this ^^ kind of argument seems completely and totally lacking in the merit department.

 

[adf417]

Okay, I understand that we as Catholics are supposed to argue against Orthodoxy, but this ^^ kind of argument seems completely and totally lacking in the merit department.

Why Peter? My understanding, and what I here SteveVH saying is, if the asker was an Armenian Orthodox and you inadvertently sent him to a Russian Orthodox parish, when he got there he would be either confused and/or at least sad. Armenians are not allowed to receive communion in a Russian Orthodox Church. This is not my opinion but what my Armenian friend tells me.

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_J]

Why Peter? My understanding, and what I here SteveVH saying is, if the asker was an Armenian Orthodox and you inadvertently sent him to a Russian Orthodox parish, when he got there he would be either confused and/or at least sad. Armenians are not allowed to receive communion in a Russian Orthodox Church. This is not my opinion but what my Armenian friend tells me.

Peace!!!

Well that’s not what he was saying; but honestly I don’t think it’s worth rehashing because I thought his argument against the Orthodox was pretty trite and weak.

 

[steve_b]

Curious how you explain this:

This task is so urgent since
Catholics and Lutherans have never ceased to confess together the faith
in the »one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church
http://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/d…0Communion.pdf

How do I explain that? It’s curious, I’ll give you that…

Using St James explanation (paraphrased ) It’s like someone “saying” they have faith but don’t “DO” and are “NOT” what they “say” they believe. iow, James asks does one really have the faith they “say” they profess? James is saying,… No

Lutherans are NOT the “one holy catholic apostolic church” regardless of what they think or profess. They left that Church in the 16th century. If they were what they “say” they profess, they wouldn’t be Protestant and Lutheran. They’d be Catholic in the Catholic Church. So to answer your question, I don’t know why they profess what they do.

Non Catholics who recite the creed as you suggest, and put their own meanings into the words of the creed, have changed the creed. When they do that, In the end, who is it they’re really trying to convince?

Anyway, that’s my :twocents:

 

[steve_b]

You’re right, Steve. It isn’t your opinion, but, pending the POV’s of other Catholics, the opinion of your communion. And you do well to defend that view.

Jon

Re: opinion

1. 
   *]an individual Catholic’s POV, carries no weight nor authority for what the Church teaches and believes when it’s against the Church’s teaching. A personal POV is just that a pov…
   *]by “opinion of your communion” I assume by “communion” you mean the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth as scripture calls her? You’re right, I do well to defend the view(s) of the Catholic Church.

 

[steido01]

Re: opinion

1. 
   *]an individual Catholic’s POV, carries no weight nor authority for what the Church teaches and believes when it’s against the Church’s teaching. A personal POV is just that a pov…
   *]by “opinion of your communion” I assume by “communion” you mean the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth as scripture calls her? You’re right, I do well to defend the view(s) of the Catholic Church.

1. 
   Yet there are some very learned scholars in your communion (some even here on these boards) who interpret your communion’s teachings to mean something slightly different from what you are expressing. Both you and they would ardently claim that the other is, to some degree, misrepresenting the view of the Church. So who are we poor non-Romans to believe when we see differing interpretations of these often vague documents?

 

[steve_b]

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

the Orthodox by not being in union with Peter, contradict Our Lord’s plan for perfect unity [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17) The doctrine of the primacy of Peter was already settled by Jesus

• [Matthew 16:13-19 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Matthew Chapter 16)
• Peter alone gets the keys
• Peter alone can bind and loose
• [Luke 22:31-32 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke Chapter 22)
• Jesus says Peter is the greatest among THEM, i.e argument over primacy
• [John 21:15-19 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 21) in Jn 21:16 the word is [ποίμαινε (http://bibleapps.com/greek/4165.htm)
• caring
• rule
• shepherd
• tending

No other apostle did Jesus do this for.
I:

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

This is talking about Protestants of all stripes. Baptism is a sacrament meant to bring someone into the Catholic Church…NOT into schism and heresy from the Catholic Church.
I:

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

iow, God is not a God of confusion. God wants perfect unity in His Church [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17)

There is no such thing as

• seperate and/but equal.
• nor seperate and no problem with that

[Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5)
I:

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

1. From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.

Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78

And that doesn’t conflict or contradict the fact that division from the Church is condemned in scripture. The word for “division” or “dissent” , or “schism” whichever one’s translation uses, is the same word in Greek in both these passages from Romans and Galatians.

[διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) dichostasia: standing apart, dissension, division

[Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5)

 

[steve_b]

Yet there are some very learned scholars in your communion (some even here on these boards) who interpret your communion’s teachings to mean something slightly different from what you are expressing.

iow you’re saying their interpretation disagrees with the Church’s teaching?
s:

Both you and they would ardently claim that the other is, to some degree, misrepresenting the view of the Church. So who are we poor -]non-Romans/-] non Catholics to believe when we see differing interpretations of these often vague documents?

Let me ask you. Do you see any division what so ever, (either in the hierarchy, the rank and file, etc etc) in the following prayer of Jesus?
John 17:20-23

Now look at what Paul said about those who cause division in or from the Church
Romans 16:17-20 , btw, the word for dissension διχοστασίας dichostasia: standing apart, dissension, division, schism, whichever word is used in one’s translation, is the same Greek word also used in Gal 5:20

Then he gives the consequences if one dies in that sin (dissension, schism. division)
Galatians 5:19-21 vs 20 διχοστασίας dichostasia: standing apart, dissension, division, same word used in Rom 16:17. One won’t inherit heaven. vs 21

Seems a harsh judgement by Paul. But who gave Paul that teaching? John 14:25-26 . Where did the HS get that from? It’s Jesus John 16:12-15

Therefore, the Judge is telling us in advance through the HS through Paul, how He will judge division from His Church.

 

[adf417]

So who are we poor non-Romans to believe when we see differing interpretations of these often vague documents?

Would you be willing to take the pope’s word as the final norm? I am.

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_J]

Yet there are some very learned scholars in your communion **(some even here on these boards) **who interpret your communion’s teachings to mean something slightly different from what you are expressing.

At the risk of getting side-tracked by a parenthetical comment, I wouldn’t give too much weight to anything just because someone on this forum (or on Christianforums or OCnet or where ever) says it.

 

[steve_b]

Would you also need to know if they are Pentecostal or Christo-Pagan or Evangelical,or Spiritist and also if they are moderate,Conservative, Traditional or Sedevacanist ? And wait, who has the nearest folk Mass? (well, that was the sixties).

No

Look up the definition of “rite”

 

[steve_b]

Is that like saying, ALL 21 Protestant traditions are 100% Protestant because they are not in union with the pope?

No.
p:

And, ALL 19 Orthodox traditions are 100% Orthodox because they are not in union with the pope?

No

 

[steve_b]

When there is a conundrum something is awry in the mix .On one hand we are told we are “separated brethren”, baptized into Christ. So we say thank you.Then we are told it is only because or somehow thru the Catholic Church that it is so, that we are under your “umbrella”. Hmm, OK if you want to take credit, and certainly some credit is due to our forefathers.

It’s an easier term to use. Meant to make dialogue easier with those in division from the Church.

Is division of any kind something Jesus wants? No
.[John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17)
p:

But then we are told if we know of the CC and enter not, we are lost. What ? So it seems someone is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Can discerning Orthodox and Protestant really be “separated brethren” when there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church ?

Yes

Just like the questions,

• Isn’t hell something created by God? Yes.
• Are souls in hell still loved by God? Yes. [Romans 8:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8:39&version=RSVCE) They are fully seperated from God, just not seperated from His love.

p:

Vatican II seems to be nice to us brethren in one sentence (to please ecumenism, even Cyprian ?) and the next sentence we are lost unless ignorant ( to please hardliners ?). Do I have it right ,despite not using the latin lingo for the two ideas ?

Ignorance providing one is innocently ignorant, can mitigate fault. God will judge who is innocently ignorant… certainly not me

 

[steido01]

iow you’re saying their interpretation disagrees with the Church’s teaching?

Not at all. I don’t typically presume to tell others that they are improperly confessing their own faith. I’m asking who you are to interpret your communion’s teaching. Both you and Jose are, I’m sure, strong, thinking, faithful Roman Catholics. From what I’ve learned of you both in this forum, you both support and draw from Rome’s teachings. Neither of you would intentionally try to ‘change’ or otherwise befuddle the beliefs held by your communion (and I truly commend you both for it!). Yet your interpretations of Dominus Iesus, for example, seem to be rather incompatible:

• Are “separated brethren” baptized into Christ through a “valid” Trinitarian baptism and thereby brought into a mystical (albeit, imperfect!) communion with the Catholic Church?
• Or are “separated brethren” who receive a “valid” baptism no better off (spiritually-speaking) than a Muslim or a Jew – or worse, perhaps, given their continued division?

So, again, I ask: which of you is correctly interpreting your communion’s teachings, and who are you to tell your fellow Roman Catholics so?

Let me ask you…

With respect, no. I am aware of what Rome teaches regarding schism and division; I do not require a lesson irrelevant to the discussion. Please answer my question.

 

[steve_b]

Not at all. I don’t typically presume to tell others that they are improperly confessing their own faith. I’m asking who you are to interpret your communion’s teaching. Both you and Jose are, I’m sure, strong, thinking, faithful Roman Catholics. From what I’ve learned of you both in this forum, you both support and draw from Rome’s teachings. Neither of you would intentionally try to ‘change’ or otherwise befuddle the beliefs held by your communion (and I truly commend you both for it!). Yet your interpretations of Dominus Iesus, for example, seem to be rather incompatible:

• Are “separated brethren” baptized into Christ through a “valid” Trinitarian baptism and thereby brought into a mystical (albeit, imperfect!) communion with the Catholic Church?
• Or are “separated brethren” who receive a “valid” baptism no better off (spiritually-speaking) than a Muslim or a Jew – or worse, perhaps, given their continued division?

So, again, I ask: which of you is correctly interpreting your communion’s teachings, and who are you to tell your fellow Roman Catholics so?

The Catechism states

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

Re: the baptised, and their status, to the point you raise,

Isn’t Paul talking to the baptised here? Yes. [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5) What happens to the baptised who die for example in division?.. see Gal 5:21.

So it’s possible for one to be baptised and yet not “in” the Church due to division / schism. Even though a person can’t erase their baptism, they will always be baptised, they CAN be, or can put themselves outside the Church.
s:

With respect, no. I am aware of what Rome teaches regarding schism and division; I do not require a lesson irrelevant to the discussion. Please answer my question.

With respect, In that response, I quoted 100% from scripture.
[http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11375394&postcount=48 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11375394&postcount=48)

Re: “seperated brothers” or seperation period, up the page, it’s not a good place (seperation) for one’s soul to be in, as one can see… Does that answer your question?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

…

however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church

You failed to address this point.

Even a Catholic, who has been baptized into the Catholic Church can be NOT in communion with the Bishop of Rome by their own actions. See Luther, et. al.

This document, on Prima Facie, expresses that you cannot be incorporated into Christ and not be part of the Church. If these individuals by their actions separate themselves from the Church, ex post facto, that is a different reason. There is even the concept of baptism of desire. Not only that, but the Church recognizes those converts that have been already baptized in these communities and She doesn’t re-baptize them. Because their baptism is recognized as valid.

We also walk a fine line and can become dissenters as well, when we become intransigent in a stance that attempts to find a commonality and build from there.

I am pretty stern in the Church’s stances - that means the ones I like and the ones I don’t like.

If you want to take a hard line, be my guest. But please don’t preach to choir and don’t turn an ecumenical document into your own lack of tolerance.

 

[JonNC]

Would you be willing to take the pope’s word as the final norm? I am.

Peace!!!

In agreement with the other patriarchs, yes.

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

• Are “separated brethren” baptized into Christ through a “valid” Trinitarian baptism and thereby brought into a mystical (albeit, imperfect!) communion with the Catholic Church?
• Or are “separated brethren” who receive a “valid” baptism no better off (spiritually-speaking) than a Muslim or a Jew – or worse, perhaps, given their continued division?

.

I have not followed the discussion so far and so don’t know the context. Strictly speaking, in answering the question, it is the former. Other Christians who are not in communion with us are separated and therefore do not possess the fullness of the truth of the Church but they are nevertheless believers in Jesus Christ though imperfectly and outside of his Church.