Can you please offer some of St. Gregory’s writings which argues against the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff to be part of the revealed Christian Faith, and/or who have not held that the supreme, immediate and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is held as of divine right as part of the divine constitution of the Church?
Mein Gott… It’s funny, though.I am amusing myself merrily imagining a thread here in which a JW professes that he’s a Lutheran. Just a Non-Trinitarian Lutheran.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a designation under his Profile as: “Lutheran Jehovah’s Witness”?
Indeed.Mein Gott… It’s funny, though.
It’s a logical conclusion, though. If people are going to throw out certain, commonly accepted definitions attached to names, they will call themselves whatever they like. I guess I get to be a Polynesian Rastafarian now… well, a Caucasian Polynesian Rastafarian who holds to the Augsburg Confession. youtube.com/watch?v=mACqcZZwG0kIndeed.
No, not necessarily.
I did not say that he gave an exhaustive definition of what ‘catholic’ means. But he gave the most important one; being in communion with a validly consecrated bishop.
Which is presicely what we are discussing. You are simply begging the question.
Of course not. There is no doubt that JW’s aren’t Lutherans. But there IS doubt on the question of whether or not you need to be in communion with Rome to be catholic.
Where does he say it’s “the most important one”?
Well, yeah.
I’m proposing that they are.
It’s gaga lala nonsense to proclaim that there’s a special subset of Catholics who gets to defy the pope.
Certainly.
As I have already said, ad nauseum, knock yourself out if you want to say that your church is catholic. Go for it.
If this is nonsense, then by all mean do provide an argument that actually shows this. What you present here is a claim, not an argument. Can you provide positive argument that actually conclusively shows that to be Catholic, you need to be in communion with Rome?
First, I’m bot about to let som guy on the Internet say what I can call myself. I am Catholic. There is no meaningful difference between ‘Catholic’ and ‘catholic.’ English, as you probably know, is not God’s language. Capitalization is a west Germanic thing that doesn’t say anything about the meaning of a word.
Once more, with feeling.
And these guys are Lutheran.
Absolutely there is.
Really? So you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, since you witness for Jehovah?
I have said: go for it. Use the word “catholic” to describe yourself. There is NOTHING in the word “catholic” which assumes one is subject to the Bishop of Rome.
I suppose, then, that you are going to say that you are a member of the Church of God, yes? After all, your Lutheran church is “of God”, right? And capitalization means nothing, right?
Just to be clear: you don’t see a difference between “God” and “god”?
I don’t see the logical problem with responding ‘yes’ to all those questions, with the caveat that those denominations are coincidentally mis-named. That is presumably what a Roman Catholic would say in professing belief in the Orthodox (or orthodox!) faith.I suppose, then, that you are going to say that you are a member of the Church of God, yes? After all, your Lutheran church is “of God”, right? And capitalization means nothing, right?
And you are a member of the United Church of God, yes? After all, your Lutheran church is “united as the church of God”, right? And capitalization means nothing, right?
And you are a member of Christ’s Sanctified Holy Church, yes?
After all, your Lutheran church is “Christ’s church, and is sanctified, and holy”, right? And capitalization means nothing, right?
And you are a member of the God Is Love Pentecostal Church, yes? After all, your Lutheran church does profess that “God is love”, right? And you recognize Pentecost, yes? And capitalization means nothing, right?
Nice try, but this is a desperate argument. How can I, or anybody else, be expected to demonstrate a negative like this? Can you offer some of Pope St Leo the Great’s writings which argue against the belief that there’s a giant rabbit on the planet Venus? Hmm, I thought not. I wonder what we should draw from that conclusion.
You made the claim, Novo, that he rejected “the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff to be part of the revealed Christian Faith, and/or who have not held that the supreme, immediate and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is held as of divine right as part of the divine constitution of the Church”
Fair enough.
Nope.
No, I very carefully didn’t make that claim. I made no claim to explicit rejection. Note the negatives. I claimed that:
St. Gregory was one of these. It’s your implicit assertion that as a Catholic Doctor of the Church he must have been, believed and held these things. Or, you could just admit that Rome acknowledges at least a few Catholics outside her communion.
I’m not denying that such would be misleading or problematic! In the same way, an English Roman Catholic presumably believes herself to be a member of the true Church of England, but will in general avoid publically claiming that without qualifiers due to the possible confusion such a claim (which you and she would presumably hold to be true!) would likely cause.Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is and put in your profile or signature that you belong to the “God is Love Pentecostal Church”.
You might want to see what the God Is Love Pentecostal Church professes though.Fair enough.
Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is and put in your profile or signature that you belong to the “God is Love Pentecostal Church”.
I confess that I’d never heard of them!