A stranger asks for the Catholic Church

[EvangelCatholic]

I haven’t been following the discussion closely but it appears most are in agreement to the original poster’s question that when asked where the local Catholic Church that one would point to the local Roman Catholic parish.

There is, however, disagreement over who is a Catholic? If the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue claims Lutherans confess the catholic faith than are we catholics or not?

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
lutheranworld.org/sites/d…0Communion.pdf

 

[SteveVH]

I haven’t been following the discussion closely but it appears most are in agreement to the original poster’s question that when asked where the local Catholic Church that one would point to the local Roman Catholic parish.

There is, however, disagreement over who is a Catholic? If the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue claims Lutherans confess the catholic faith than are we catholics or not?

There are many Protestant communities that profess things Catholic, from the most basic beliefs in the Trinity forward. Those things are well and good. The problem is that they also profess many things that are not at all Catholic; i.e. ordination of women; bishops openly living gay lifestyles, etc. Since these issues would result in the excommunication of any Catholic bishop who acted in such a way and persisted in that behavior, one cannot very well call themselves Catholic who have never been in full communion in the first place and do support or engage in such activities.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There are many Protestant communities that profess things Catholic, from the most basic beliefs in the Trinity forward. Those things are well and good. The problem is that they also profess many things that are not at all Catholic; i.e. ordination of women; bishops openly living gay lifestyles, etc. Since these issues would result in the excommunication of any Catholic bishop who acted in such a way and persisted in that behavior, one cannot very well call themselves Catholic who have never been in full communion in the first place and do support or engage in such activities.

So Lutherans who do not ordain women priests and gay bishops are catholic?

 

[steve_b]

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.

When you said “That is just an opinion”. There were 3 opinions given in my response… Mine, Kreeft’s, and Card Ratzinger’s.

How was I to know who you were commenting on with that response?

 

[SteveVH]

So Lutherans who do not ordain women priests and gay bishops are catholic?

Not necessarily, but it is a step in the right direction. That was only one example.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

When you said “That is just an opinion”. There were 3 opinions given in my response… Mine, Kreeft’s, and Card Ratzinger’s.

How was I to know who you were commenting on with that response?

1. You referred me to a link at the ncregister
2. The article in the ncregister was written by Dr. Kreeft.
3. Dr. Kreeft is citing bits and pieces from PEBXVI, common for technique for most writers in order to “mold” their article to the points they are addressing.
4. You previously told Jon that you were not giving your opinion in this matter.

Now perhaps you can explain why you would refer me to the same document I am quoting?

Or

If there were 3 opinions, why would you not seek clarification before answering?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

Worse, it is left OK for each one individual with a Bible…

Where, by the way, we have a Church governance and hierarchy. But this part is conveniently left out in the: “it really doesn’t mean that”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

Thank you for the link! I was not aware of this document.

 

[steve_b]

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.

That’s not what’s being said.

Salvation is through Jesus in His Catholic Church. Otherwise, there would be no penalty for division from His Church that would be tied to salvation Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 . Once others who are outside the Catholic Church know from the Catholic Church, how salvation is achieved, then they too have that knowledge of salvation, and can pass it on. However, what these others are NOT teaching who are outside the Church, is that other part, that part that salvation comes through the Catholic Church.

As the CCC states

“Hence they could not be saved who,** knowing** that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

For full quote 846

That is supported by the scripture passages above.

Is there wiggle room to this? Yes

If a person is innocently ignorant of this, they won’t be held responsible for what they don’t know. Providing their ignorance is innocent. Ignorance as we know isn’t always innocent. Especially when one makes little effort to learn what is necessary 1791 in that case a person is no longer presumed ignorant. The wiggle room of ignorance isn’t there anymore

 

[steve_b]

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

Look at the note at the top of the Doc (emphasis mine)

"The following is the original English text of the ‘Ravenna Document’ which was discussed and unanimously approved by the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007. Thus, the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has provided translations of the text in Italian, French and German. "

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Peter

Look at the note at the top of the Doc (emphasis mine)

"The following is the original English text of the ‘Ravenna Document’ which was discussed and unanimously approved by the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007. Thus, the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has provided translations of the text in Italian, French and German. "

I still hold it in higher regard than any other opinion given here so far.

 

[steve_b]

1. You referred me to a link at the ncregister
2. The article in the ncregister was written by Dr. Kreeft.
3. Dr. Kreeft is citing bits and pieces from PEBXVI, common for technique for most writers in order to “mold” their article to the points they are addressing.
4. You previously told Jon that you were not giving your opinion in this matter.

And in that case I didn’t give my opinion
I:

Now perhaps you can explain why you would refer me to the same document I am quoting?

To show you that Kreeft’s point about “subsists in” in the NCR article was a direct quote from Dominus Jesus. That’s all.
I:

Or

If there were 3 opinions, why would you not seek clarification before answering?

There were 3 opinions there.

As for asking questions for clarification, I tried that on a previous post. before that, and It was met with a “sigh”. Hey it was a fair question.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11377340&postcount=65

And you say that I’m “without a doubt one of the most patronizing and frustrating people I have exchanged conversations on the internet”. sheesh.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And you say that I’m “without a doubt one of the most patronizing and frustrating people I have exchanged conversations on the internet”. sheesh.

Yes, and that is my infallible internet personal opinion.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by steve b
And you say that I’m “without a doubt one of the most patronizing and frustrating people I have exchanged conversations on the internet”. sheesh.

If you’ll forgive me for “butting in”, I did think it was a slightly impolite way of putting it. (Not that I agree with everything steve b says. You know.)

 

[Peter_J]

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

Well, I don’t care too much for the sarcasm but regardless … Seriously? Are you so low on things to say about the topic at hand that you need to start talking about me instead?

Oh, and I’m not a mind reader. That’s why my post was about what you said; I made no claim concerning what you meant or didn’t mean to say.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I can’t stop reading more into your words than is there, anymore than I can stop beating my wife. I read exactly what is there. Here it is again:

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.

 

[Peter_J]

I haven’t been following the discussion closely but it appears most are in agreement to the original poster’s question that when asked where the local Catholic Church that one would point to the local Roman Catholic parish.

There is, however, disagreement over who is a Catholic? If the Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue claims Lutherans confess the catholic faith than are we catholics or not?

(bold-face added)

Yes! You’re just not Catholics.

 

[Novocastrian]

(bold-face added)

Yes! You’re just not Catholics.

So, I really don’t get the difference between Catholics, catholics, Catholics and catholics. Can we define them?

Which one am I?

 

[steve_b]

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”.

Consider 2 statements. One is correct one isn’t

1. • nothing can seperate us from God. This I hear all the time from Protestants on these forums and it is a mistatement
   • nothing can seperate us from the love of God. That’s a correct statement [Romans 8:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8:39&version=RSVCE)
   Re: statement #1 those folks I suspect would have problems hearing the term “seperated bretheren”. maybe to them it sounds like an oxymoron
   
   Re:statement #2 a correct statement, the term seperated bretheren I suspect wouldn’t cause any problems for folks who quote Rom 8:39 properly
   p:
   

   Anyways, can you see how the term is an oxymoron from Protestant perspective ?

   Yes
   p:
   

   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)

   While difficulties occur throughout history, it never excuses division from the Church.
   p:
   

   So brethren is a term that can be applied any unsaved Christian (they are in hell per your thought/chain of events) ?

   I don’t judge anyone. People go to hell because Jesus judged them so.
   
   Re: just 1 sin, “division from the Church”, i.e. the Catholic Church,
   • [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5) , depending on one’s translation they use, the word in Greek [διχοστασίας (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm) for [dissension / division / schism ] in Rom 16:17 & Gal 5:19 is the same word. In Gal 5:21, shows the consequences for “dissension”. One won’t inherit heaven.
   p:
   

   I also think Romans applies only to the “saved”" and is a scripture used by eternal security folks.

   Technically, all books of the NT are written to the Church. In the case of Romans it’s written to the Church at Rome.
   p:
   

   So really what is separated brethren ?

   Example : the prodigal son. 2 sons were also obviously brothers to each other. The one son wanted his inheritance and left the family. What did the Father say about this son who left? Lk 15:24 this son of mine was dead.
   • what would the prodigal brother be to the other brother? A separated brother,…right?
   Fortunately, he didn’t remain separated, he came home.
   p:
   

   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 ?

   What do I say?
   
   Where in scripture is division from the Church okay?
   
   Explain what you mean by
   • “on fire for Christ” ? Shouldn’t that mean on fire for obedience to what Jesus wants?
   • What does authentic devotion mean for people seperated from the Church which is a sin already condemned?
   • When you say knowingly not aligning with Rome, a better way to say that is, knowingly not aligning with the successor of Peter. Think about that. I say fat chance slipping that one past Jesus.
   Jesus started His Church 2000 yrs ago. He gave all His promises to it. Said it would last forever, and not even the gates of hell would prevail against it.
   
   But here’s something I draw your attention to specifically. He made the following prayer before ascending back to heaven read this carefully [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17) . (that’s what Jesus wants) so everyone should want that also.
   
   Do you see even a pin hole possibility of division there? No. Look at Romans and Galatians above again. Those warnings and consequences agaist division, are horrendous for a soul, and they will be there till the end of time. No expiration date to those warnings and consequences.

 

[Peter_J]

So, I really don’t get the difference between Catholics, catholics, Catholics and catholics. Can we define them?

Which one am I?

You’re catholic (or catholic). I am too, but I’m Catholic, not Anglican.