N
Novocastrian
Guest
And what does that mean?You’re catholic (or catholic). I am too, but I’m Catholic, not Anglican.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well look at it this way: I’m orthodox, but I’m not Orthodox.And what does that mean?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
It kinda was, I did try to put a bit of humor but failed. steve b and EC get on my bad side. I need to learn how to keep my composure with certain postersIf 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.)
P
pocohombre
Guest
You left out the word “particular” before “Church governance and hierarchy” that I included. Was it conveniently left out ?
P
pocohombre
Guest
Sorry ,I meant that non-Catholic traditions have salvation possible for all traditions, unlike Catholicism, where only they have salvation
Right ,is this from Vat II. Is it right after the nice part that acknowledges separated brethren, that we are just not in fullness ?
P
pocohombre
Guest
Well what is God’s love ? Is it not the gift of Himself to us somehow,thru Christ ? How can you be fully in His love thru Christ and yet be separated from Him? That is oxymoron. Of course we have free will and can separate ourselves and Paul presupposes this but insists it won’t happen. For He foreknew us, conformed us, predestined us, called us, justified us, glorified us. I can see God calling us separated brethren due to his foreknowledge that we will finally turn to Him, but for us to apply the term to one another who will not turn to Him is wrong. What good is your brotherhood if Christ says to you , “depart from me, I don’t know you”
Nor does it excuse the church from causing divisions or “not pacifying”.
Nothing to do with judging. Just that you seem to be saying "brethren "can be one who is in hell by definition,as well as a saint in heaven.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
There is no convenience in talking about all these separations. Sadly, that is the nature of Protestantism, one person’s interpretation will give birth to yet another denomination - or another non-denomimation - or another Bible only church.
It is impossible to ignore.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, it’s from Lumen Gentium 14:
But the thing is, people often quote it apart from the sentence that comes right before it:
S
steve_b
Guest
is possible good enough?
p:
Actually Vat II gets it from scripture & tradition
Scripture
Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 you’ve seen these before many times.
- Is Paul writing to people in the Catholic Church? Yes
- Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς = the Church….Kata…Holos…= the kataholos Church = Catholic Church.The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means
- Is division / dissension from the Catholic Church condemned? Yes Look at Gal 5:21 above. A person who dissents from the Catholic Church and remains that way will not enter heaven.
- The Catholic Church is THE Church, already in place by Jesus and the apostles, and people know where it is and who it is. There is only ONE Catholic Church.
- The warning and consequences for going against the warning is already there, to divide from this Church is disasterous to one’s soul.
- One like yourself might ask where does this teaching ultimately come from?
- Isn’t what I’m quoting coming from scripture? Yes. Isn’t all scripture inspired of God? Yes
- Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…true?
- Where did the HS get that teaching to teach Paul? He received it from Jesus John 16:12-15
- So Jesus our Savior, is not only savior but also judge. And the judge of all the living and the dead, is telling us in advance, through the HS through Paul, how He will judge those who divide from His Church.
- iow, to answer another one of your questions, I quoted from the CCC
“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.” - To test that statement I suggest looking closely at Rom 16:17-21 & Gal 5:19-21 above. Is Protestantism regardless of stripe, divided from the Church? Yes. They originally divided from the Catholic Church in the 16th century.
- St IgnatiusBp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., ordained by apostles, disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church Epistle to the Smyrnæansof which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians
- St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
- Muratorian canon earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html
- Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]Chapter 3
- Cyprian~250 a.d. Epistle 54
- The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
- Augustine ~395 There are many other things that most justly keep me in her * bosom. . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental
- etc etc etc
P
pocohombre
Guest
Yes, that is the 2x4 in our eye. What is yours ? Any unity by force or decree is not real unity. Any freedom that disregards unity isn’t worth it either. But, the truth will always divide. Going along to get along is not always admirable either.
P
pocohombre
Guest
My bible says, "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea, Galilee and and Samaria.
Catholic means universal. Church means ecclesia or called out. Paul says nothing catholic here. That is why he is specific in naming the three territories Saul terrorized.
It doesn’t say not to dissent from the Catholic church. The context is not to dissent from the gospel that formed the church at Galatia.The Galatian christian was to be free in Christ, and the heresy, the dissenters were those that "added’ to the gospel, added more “fleshly” rules such as circumcision etc
It was not the Catholic church, not by that name .It was simply the church ,the called out.Then they became known as Christians, and people of the way.
Now I can agree with that for you only say church. Again the context is division due to fleshly, as opposed to spiritual, demands. Another words, if you change the gospel and add wrongly, you are in big trouble.
Is it divided from the "called out " ecclesia , or is she divided from the Catholic church
Yes, and we don’t know if he capitalized catholic(for all letters are capital.The term is a first, meaning universal, and is used in juxtaposition to schismatics who were in a minority and not universal.
Ditto, no indication that it means nothing more than “universal” not necessarily capital either(all were in entire creed) and not what Catholic means today
P
pocohombre
Guest
Possible is better than impossible. It also indicates salvation is not determined by church membership but more if one should so choose salvation.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Letting you go and not being able to bring you back.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Lies. The Catholic Church was there founded by the apostles. The Catholic Church can trace all her history back to the apostles until today. There was no time when there was an interruption of the Church founded by Christ.
The Church may not be by that name but it was by the same people, the apostles. The name evolves merely to distinguish the claim by Protestants that they represent this same Church which in fact is not. The Church may be small, simple, then because her numbers were little and hunted down by the secular authority, the Romans, but nevertheless it was the same Church today except now her numbers has increased and the area where they have spread are getting bigger and thus the administration of the Church accordingly.
It is understandable for some Protestants to deny this truth because half of your existence is meaningless if you recognize it. Deny all you can and dream on but it does not change the fact that the Catholic Church now is the same Church that was set up by Jesus through the action of the apostles.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Touche !
P
pocohombre
Guest
“It was not the Catholic church, not by that name” is what I said and you said, “Lies” ? Then you say the same thing ?
Right. I said nothing of the people. Of course it was the apostles.
Yes, thank you.
. Yes, " you are of Peter" and we are not. Where did we hear or read of that before ? Secondly, it was not to distinguish from Protestants, for according to CC we did not evolve till 16 th century. It was to distinguish from heretics of 2nd century on.The belief of these heretics we both disagree with, and goes much deeper than simply “not being of Peter”.
Agree same “church” that was simpler, with less traditions, decrees, rules, rituals etc. back then. Agreed, we all have the same foundation. Anyone in the Body of Christ today is built upon those who went before us in the faith, especially the first, the beloved apostles. You call them Catholic for yourself, fine, but to cause division, not fine. They were what they were by any other name and honor is due them, including many who bear the name Roman Catholic thereafter.
P
Peter_J
Guest
The term “Catholic Church” wasn’t around from the beginning (nor was the term “Christians”) but it did appear quite early in the life of Christianity. Even many of your fellow protestants profess it in the creed, and smaller-but-still-substantial portion of them will call themselves “Catholic” or “catholic”.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Actually, we do have a record from the 2nd century in St. Ignatius of Antioch:
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. **Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. **It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Yes, agreed. I would consider myself catholic, as in small "c’ and not as in “Roman”, and as an adjective, not as a noun. I think the term went from being used as an adjective to noun, within a century or two.
S
steve_b
Guest
- Universal in this case means according to the whole, iow, the same exact faith preached and believed everywhere.
Ignatius was taught by John, and the name Catholic Church was used during apostolic times. See the following links
p:
I gave you the links to prove my point.
Ignatius Bp of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. wrote 6 letters. Ignatius was a contemporary and direct disciple of St John the apostle. iow Ignatius lived during the time of John, and was taught by John. Ignatius made several points regarding the Catholic Church. Yes Ignatius used the proper name “Catholic Church” during apostolic times. That means the name was there during the time of the apostles because they used the name also.
Now poco, you gotta read these links I’m providing. If you choose not to read them, know you can’t plead ignorance to not knowing the contents of these letters. Ignorance only works in one’s favor as an escape, when ignorance is completely innocent. When one won’t take the effort to learn what they should know, when it’s right in front of them, they no longer can plead innocence by virtue of ignorance.
- Ignatius called the Church the Catholic Church [Epistle to the Smyrnæans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) ch 8, of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven [Epistle to the Philadelphians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm) ch 3.
- St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, also a disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” [The Martyrdom of Polycarp (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm)
- Muratorian canon earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html
- Irenaeus ~180 a.d. Bp of Lyon, was 1 man away from an apostle. He wrote “Against Heresies” and called the Church the “Catholic Church” [Adversus haereses (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm) [Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3][Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) because that is what the apostles Peter and Paul taught.
- Cyprian~250 a.d. [Epistle 54 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm)
- The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
- etc etc etc
Where do we see that in scripture? In scripture we see “the Church according to the whole” in Acts 9:31 [ἐκκλησία (http://bibleapps.com/greek/1577.htm),[καθ’ (http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm),[ὅλης (http://bibleapps.com/greek/3650.htm)** ,**[τῆς (http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm) and in Luke 4:14; Luke 23:5; Acts 9:42; Acts 10:37.
iow the Church ἐκκλησία, τῆς] throughout all καθ’kata ὅλης holos] is the Kataholos Church = Catholic Church. The same Church Pope Francis is over today, 266th successor to St Peter.
p:
It’s speaking squarely against division from the Church
- Status