A stranger asks for the Catholic Church

[steido01]

In agreement with the other patriarchs, yes.

Jon

*Assuming, of course, that they are speaking in agreement with Scripture and the traditions of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

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. 
   No. By your communion meaning that part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is by no means only and exclusively that OHCAC.

 

[adf417]

*Assuming, of course, that they are speaking in agreement with Scripture and the traditions of the Church.

I’m sorry Don. if I would have know you were asking an unanswerable question in post #46 I sure wouldn’t have wasted your time.

Peace!!!

 

[steve_b]

No. By your communion meaning that part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is by no means only and exclusively that OHCAC.

Oh contraire. That which is in " communion with the Bishop of Rome" THAT is the OHCAC

 

[steve_b]

You failed to address this point.

"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 "

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.

True
I:

This document, on Prima Facie, expresses that you cannot be incorporated into Christ and not be part of the Church.

if baptism made everybody that is baptised “in” the Church, why isn’t there open Eucharist? Why is a Catholic married in a Protestant assembly, considered married outside the Church?
I:

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.

Those baptised in the Catholic Church are Catholics. Those baptised outside the Catholic Church are not Catholics. If they want to be Catholic they need to go through the process of being brought into the Church.
I:

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.

Are you speaking of a type of relativism?
I:

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.

Re: Dominus Jesus

there is a phrase “subsists in” the Catholic Church that gets alot of attention, which it responds to and explains.

"Dominus Iesus refutes the “liberal” separation of the two (three cheers for Christ, one for the Church) by correcting its misinterpretation of Vatican II’s statement that Christ’s Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church:
“With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that ‘outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth’ … but … they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. … 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.”
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/dominus-iesus-liberal-or-conservative#ixzz2jvTb0ZFm

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Obviously there is difference of opinion supported by official Roman Catholic documents. The discussion breaks down to personal experience; some more informed than others.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

if baptism made everybody that is baptised “in” the Church, why isn’t there open Eucharist? Why is a Catholic married in a Protestant assembly, considered married outside the Church?

This is much more deeper than what you are making it to be.

Can you be in Christ and not be in His Church?

There is a difference between baptism and communion.

The document clearly specifies that the ones that are baptized but not in communion are imperfectly united to the Church.

Those baptised in the Catholic Church are Catholics. Those baptised outside the Catholic Church are not Catholics. If they want to be Catholic they need to go through the process of being brought into the Church.

In order to be in communion.

Are you speaking of a type of relativism?

Sigh… No. I’m speaking about that by being intransigent to Church teaching we can promote division.

Re: Dominus Jesus

there is a phrase “subsists in” the Catholic Church that gets alot of attention, which it responds to and explains.

"Dominus Iesus refutes the “liberal” separation of the two (three cheers for Christ, one for the Church) by correcting its misinterpretation of Vatican II’s statement that Christ’s Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church:“With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that ‘outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth’ … but … they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. … 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.”
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/dominus-iesus-liberal-or-conservative#ixzz2jvTb0ZFm

That is just an opinion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Obviously there is difference of opinion supported by official Roman Catholic documents. The discussion breaks down to personal experience; some more informed than others.

No, there is a difference in the interpretation of such documents.

 

[pocohombre]

This is much more deeper than what you are making it to be.

Can you be in Christ and not be in His Church?

There is a difference between baptism and communion.

The document clearly specifies that the ones that are baptized but not in communion are imperfectly united to the Church.

In order to be in communion.

Sigh… No. I’m speaking about that by being intransigent to Church teaching we can promote division.

That is just an opinion.

It is ironic that with all the divisions outside of Rome, they can at least all say there is salvation also in the others, a true universalism, without any double talk (no interior “battle” over it) . Lord help that wall to come down.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is ironic that with all the divisions outside of Rome, they can at least all say there is salvation also in the others, a true universalism, without any double talk (no interior “battle” over it) . Lord help that wall to come down.

And each with its own interpretation of what salvation is…

Ironic indeed but not for the reasons you are making to be.

 

[steve_b]

There is a difference between baptism and communion.

The document clearly specifies that the ones that are baptized but not in communion are imperfectly **united **to the Church.

iow, they are not “in” the Church.
I:

In order to be in communion.

and entrance into the Church.
I:

That is just an opinion.

That was a direct quote from Dominus Jesus.
see section IV UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

iow, they are not “in” the Church.

and entrance into the Church.

That was a direct quote from Dominus Jesus.
see section IV UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

You are without a doubt one of the most patronizing and frustrating people I have exchanged conversations on the internet. I mean, for you to quote the very same document that I am referring to after I am commenting on what Dr. Kreeft is writing cannot be interpreted any other way than an attempt to be condescending and patronizing and to argue for the sake of argument.

 

[JonNC]

Oh contraire. That which is in " communion with the Bishop of Rome" THAT is the OHCAC

A significant part, indeed, but not only and exclusively.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

And each with its own interpretation of what salvation is…

Ironic indeed but not for the reasons you are making to be.

Yea but they still don’t constrain salvation to a particular church governance/heirarchy

 

[Peter_J]

This is much more deeper than what you are making it to be.

Can you be in Christ and not be in His Church?

There is a difference between baptism and communion.

The document clearly specifies that the ones that are baptized but not in communion are imperfectly united to the Church.

Good points. I’d like to chime in with this quote from the Ravenna document:

[1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church “subsists in the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

• vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

 

[Peter_J]

Oh contraire.

 

[pocohombre]

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

Thanks for responding. I see things simply. Back in Genesis there are two kinds of people, as per two kinds of seed. Those of the serpent, unbelievers, and those of Eve, those believing in the Promise. You are either in one kingdom or the other. A brethren is one who is in the kingdom of heaven, a child of the Promise, part of the “Body”, part of the ecclesia/church. Is separated brethren an oxymoron ? Of course this is problematic if one thinks they eneter in and out of the kingdom ,in and out of salvation/grace,and can not know for sure till the hour of death and the last breath as to whether one is in grace, if they have endured .In that case we are all separated brethren from time to time thru out our “salvation”. Anyways, can you see how the term is an oxymoron from Protestant perspective ?

Is division of any kind something Jesus wants? No

Agreed. But says Barnabus(4:30) “Cause not a schism, but thou shalt pacify those that contend”. Takes two to tango.Division over some things is avoidable.
.[John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17)

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.

So brethren is a term that can be applied any unsaved Christian (they are in hell per your thought/chain of events) ? I also think Romans applies only to the “saved”" and is a scripture used by eternal security folks. Doesn’t apply to people in hell. That God is everywhere we agree but whether we are in the midst of his love or judgement are two different things. Hell is where God isn’t in His love. Hell is where we are separated from God’s love. If it were not possible why would Paul tell us so beautifully the saint can not be if no one can be ? So really what is separated brethren ?

[/QUIgnorance providing one is innocently ignorant, can mitigate fault. God will judge who is innocently ignorant… certainly not me ;

Part of me says more gobbly gook . I know you are being serious and there is a place for the thought you kindly put forth . I sometimes appreciate calling a spade a spade. No tip toeing thru the tulips.Tell it like it is. Am I right however, that part of the ambiguity, or flip flopping is due to internal struggle within the CC as to what to make of it ? That is, what do you say of those “brethren separated” who seem to be on fire for Christ with good fruits and holy living, and an authentic devotion, and are knowingly not aligning with Rome ?
[/quote]

 

[steido01]

Does that answer your question?

No, not at all. You really didn’t address the questions I posed. Perhaps I was unclear in my asking. Thanks anyway.

Jose did, though, and his answer is more reflective of the previous explanations I’ve received from Roman Catholics on the topic.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

My argument is simply this. If you ask someone where the Catholic Church is they are not, most likely, going to ask “and for what Catholic Church are you looking?” If one asks for the “Orthodox Church”, on the other hand, one would have to define the exact “Orthodox” Church" for which one is looking or one could end up in the wrong one.

I am in no way “arguing against Orthodoxy”. I’m just stating a simple fact. Why don’t you relax and stop reading more into my words than is there.

Thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

No, that is exactly what I was saying and the point I was making, oh reader of hearts and minds.