Being Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, is not essential to being Christian.

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi again Grace,

Nobody here would disagree with your statement that the Orthodox are just as apostolic, valid in orders, holy or original as the Catholic Church. But if you read the history of the Church you’ll see Rome had the final word on everything, was considered the Chair of Peter, had a special primacy not only of honor but of final say on theological and heretical matters, in excommunications and installations of clergy, and in morality. It’s not a development but a reality. That reality does not in any way indicate the other bishops are not what I said earlier, holy, catholic, apostolic, and full of dignity. The thread is about the lack of a need for one to be Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or anything, just confessors of Christ crucified and that’s good enough. I disagree with that premise. That’s the argument here, not whether or not Catholics or Orthodox are the valid and true deposit of faith-carrying Church. May God bless you.

Gurney ~

my intent was not to try to paint you as somehow anti-Orthodox, but to demonstrate why i feel that the various Orthodox churches have as much right to be called original, holy, and apostolic as the RCC, and that there is really nothing singular about the RCC itself.

the Bishopry of Rome is certainly apostolic, but the centrality and importance of that city’s Bishopry is something we see developing over the first centuries of Christian history. Antioch, Jerusalem, and other important cities likewise can claim apostolic succession, and they do.

the St. Thomas Christians (Indian Orthodox) have been a presence in India since A.D. 52.

i love the Orthodox as well, and admire them greatly.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Jesus left sacraments and so as long as you partake then we are all in the same church

Non-cathloic do not partake of ALL the Sacaments Like Anointing of the sick, Eucharist and Penance

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Christians or more to the point "Protestants, who profess the Nicene Creed, believe in the Trinity, and baptize in the the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They are disobedient brothers and sisters, however still a part of the universal Church.

The Catholic Church teaches the following

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, 275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Are you implying that Catholics are obedient brothers and sisters in Christ and non-Catholic Christians are disobedient brothers and sisters in Christ? Maybe that’s a blessing in disguise, driving us to Jesus Christ.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

You could indeed debate me. Winning the debate would be another matter…

I am merely telling you the truth–and that truth is that scripture does not exist in a vacuum as you might like it to exist. The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky completed and ready to read. The doctrine of the Trinity as it exists today didn’t just fall off a tree either. The natures of Christ, misconceptions about His will or humanity or godhead, made or begotten, on and on…Christological understandings you as a protestant (I assume you’re Protestant?) inherit from the ecumenical councils that consisted of the Eastern and Western bishops of the Church. This isn’t about boasting in traditions. These are more than traditions. This the THE CHURCH. Christ built a visible, tangiable, real Church. To say it doesn’t matter to which body we hold shows a moral relativist slant on your part. It would also ignore the Lord’s commission to Peter not once but twice, the power to bind and loose that He gave the apostles, the sacramental theology of the early Church, and many other things.

I resent your calling my faith non-Christian a great deal. I am justified in Christ Jesus by the blood of the Cross and my faith in Him. But unlike yourself, I don’t believe that mere intellectual assent to Christ’s salvific act and His divinity makes me eternally secure. The Scriptures themselves and the Church have always told us that faith must be actively demonstrated in our lives, our actions, a living faith that’s not a stagnant statement of belief we made at one time during a Billy Graham revival.

Your statement of traditions vs. the salvific act of Our Lord on the Cross shows a person who thinks we as humans cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. I can (and do) believe in justification by faith in Christ and walk in His ways and also recognize the visible Church Christ gave us grounded upon Peter to send us sacraments to help us preserve, strengthen, and activate our faith in our daily lives. I can walk and chew gum. You can, too.

And your statement that you’re not trying to divide but expose us as boastful, shallow types without a real understanding of our salvation seems oxymoronic.

I have not posted my understanding of justification; therefore, how can you assume what I believe as a Christian?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Then why did Christ institute a hierarchical body of men practicing certain Sacred Traditions and teaching certain doctrines.

Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles’ offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter’s death.

John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus’ creation of Peter’s office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.

Matt. 23:2 - this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses’ seat (“cathedra”) of authority which was preserved by succession. In the Church, Peter’s seat is called the “cathedra,” and when Peter’s successor speaks officially on a matter of faith or morals, it may rise to the level of an “ex cathedra” (from the chair) teaching.

Eph. 3:21 - this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ’s Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence. Our Protestant brothers and sisters become uncomfortable with this passage because it requires them to look for a Church that has existed for over 2,000 years. This means that all the other Christian denominations (some of which have been around even less than one year!) cannot be the church that Christ built upon the rock of Peter.

I think you need to look at your quoted Bible verse more closely.

and

“‘Let another take his office.’

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1

Are you saying that the apparent successor’s of Peter according to the Catholic Church are Apostles like Matthias?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Non-cathloic do not partake of ALL the Sacaments Like Anointing of the sick, Eucharist and Penance

What’s the difference between the Catholic sacraments and the Orthodox sacraments? It seems the non-Catholic Orthodox Christian has the Eucharist too. And Lutheran have the sacrament of penance too. I believe each Christian tradition have all the sacraments that they believe to be sacraments.

 

[wmscott]

I think you need to look at your quoted Bible verse more closely.

and

“‘Let another take his office.’

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1

Are you saying that the apparent successor’s of Peter according to the Catholic Church are Apostles like Matthias?

No, my scripture references is correct, you even give the answer in your second paragraph. What you are seeing here is the beginnings of Apostolic succession, the replacements of bishops of the Church even in the very beginning. So I am really not understanding what you fail to see here.

As a note there are no apparent successors to St Peter, there are true apostolic successors, St. Linus or second Pope with an unbroken chain, by way of laying on of hands and ordinations, all the way to Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ (Vicar - In canon law, the representative of a person clothed with ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction), meaning Christ’s representative and head of His Church here on earth.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

No, my scripture references is correct, you even give the answer in your second paragraph. What you are seeing here is the beginnings of Apostolic succession, the replacements of bishops of the Church even in the very beginning. So I am really not understanding what you fail to see here.

As a note there are no apparent successors to St Peter, there are true apostolic successors, St. Linus or second Pope with an unbroken chain, by way of laying on of hands and ordinations, all the way to Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ (Vicar - In canon law, the representative of a person clothed with ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction), meaning Christ’s representative and head of His Church here on earth.

We have a replacement of an Apostle. One of the requirements of the office is being with Christ during his earthly ministry. Please look at the verse closer because the requirement according to Scripture would leave all apparent successors as unqualified for this authoritative apostolic position. We both share in the apostolic faith taught by the Apostles. All Christians have the true Vicar also known as the third person of the Trinity.

 

[wmscott]

We have a replacement of an Apostle. One of the requirements of the office is being with Christ during his earthly ministry. Please look at the verse closer because the requirement according to Scripture would leave all apparent successors as unqualified for this authoritative apostolic position. We both share in the apostolic faith taught by the Apostles. All Christians have the true Vicar also known as the third person of the Trinity.

Who says that one must be with Christ during his earthly ministry in order to be ordained a bishop. You may want to read up on apostolic succession.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Who says that one must be with Christ during his earthly ministry in order to be ordained a bishop. You may want to read up on apostolic succession.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

That’s my point, the teaching of Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with a succession of actual Apostles. Please note that the Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit who dwells in all Christians.

 

[wmscott]

That’s my point, the teaching of Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with a succession of actual Apostles. Please note that the Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit who dwells in all Christians.

I guess you are just not going to get it. I really do not know how to explain it any other way. Maybe someone else can have better luck than I.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

I guess you are just not going to get it. I really do not know how to explain it any other way. Maybe someone else can have better luck than I.

I guess Orthodox Christians don’t get it along side with me too.

Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, A concise exposition, Fr. Michael Pomazansky, pp. 228-9:

‘The Orthodox Church of Christ refuses to recognise another head of the Church in the form of a “Vicar of Christ on earth,” a title given in the Roman Catholic Church to the Bishop of Rome. Such a title does not correspond either to the word of God or to the universal Church consciousness and tradition; it tears away the Church on earth from immediate unity with the heavenly Church. A vicar is assigned during the absence of the one replaced; but Christ is invisibly present in His Church always…Concerning the rock upon which the Lord promised the Apostle Peter to found His Church, St Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his epistle to the clergy of Palestine after the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) writes: "When the chief and first Apostle Peter said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, the Lord replied, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but My Father which is in heaven, and I say also unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Mtt. 16: 17 - 18). On this confession the Church of God is made firm, and this Faith, given to us by the holy Apostles, the Church has kept and will keep to the end of the world.’

Copied from the Defense of Sola Scriptura thread.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just a question, One, do you think that genuine, real, authentic Christianity disappeared for 1,500 years or so until the Reformation under Luther started? This Bible-only sola scriptura idea that one doesn’t need the visible church, that there are only two sacraments, that the Bible gives the believer ALL the necessary tools for salvation without the need for sacraments or the clergy or a visible Church? From what you’re saying and the tone of your posts, it would seem that, for 1500 years or so, Christ abandoned His Church and allowed it to become poisoned, corrupted like rotten fruit, and full of distorted lies…that’s a long time to allow the gates of hell to conquer and that’s a lot of souls lost…it also seems inconsistent and silly in light of Christ’s promises regarding His Church…what is your thesis?

What’s the difference between the Catholic sacraments and the Orthodox sacraments? It seems the non-Catholic Orthodox Christian has the Eucharist too. And Lutheran have the sacrament of penance too. I believe each Christian tradition have all the sacraments that they believe to be sacraments.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Perhaps you should start stating your beliefs instead of ripping into the beliefs of others then so we can have a fair “debate” as you put it. I shouldn’t have to assume what you believe. But by veing critical and deliberately vague and just putting “christian” by your name one is left to assume you’re a protestant with the typical notion that Romans says you’re justified by faith alone, etc. You have the temerity to say my beliefs are non-Christian and you leave your beliefs out of the picture. Not a level playing field from my vantage point…but I digress…

I have not posted my understanding of justification; therefore, how can you assume what I believe as a Christian?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Just a question, One, do you think that genuine, real, authentic Christianity disappeared for 1,500 years or so until the Reformation under Luther started? This Bible-only sola scriptura idea that one doesn’t need the visible church, that there are only two sacraments, that the Bible gives the believer ALL the necessary tools for salvation without the need for sacraments or the clergy or a visible Church? From what you’re saying and the tone of your posts, it would seem that, for 1500 years or so, Christ abandoned His Church and allowed it to become poisoned, corrupted like rotten fruit, and full of distorted lies…that’s a long time to allow the gates of hell to conquer and that’s a lot of souls lost…it also seems inconsistent and silly in light of Christ’s promises regarding His Church…what is your thesis?

I don’t believe in restoration theology and apostasy of the church. God has always had his people in each and every generation. God has a visible church in every generation too. Sacraments are given by God as a means of grace; therefore, Christians have always had the sacraments as a means of grace in every generation. My thesis is that God’s people saved by grace are found in many Christian traditions that appear divided unnecessarily. My call is for Christian unity throughout the visible body of Christ from all Christian traditions within the ecumenical creeds. We have great Christian unity within the orthodox doctrines of the faith.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Perhaps you should start stating your beliefs instead of ripping into the beliefs of others then so we can have a fair “debate” as you put it. I shouldn’t have to assume what you believe. But by veing critical and deliberately vague and just putting “christian” by your name one is left to assume you’re a protestant with the typical notion that Romans says you’re justified by faith alone, etc. You have the temerity to say my beliefs are non-Christian and you leave your beliefs out of the picture. Not a level playing field from my vantage point…but I digress…

I believe in penal substitution; I also believe God saves sinners who reject penal substitution but trust in Christ within their own framework and understanding of justification through Christ. Maybe our typical quibbles have to do with how the work of Christ is apportioned to us. Actually, when we are able to listen to our brother and sisters in other Christian traditions, we will find that we are much more united than most want to admit.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

To which denomination do you belong? Or are you a non-denom protestant?

I don’t believe in restoration theology and apostasy of the church. God has always had his people in each and every generation. God has a visible church in every generation too. Sacraments are given by God as a means of grace; therefore, Christians have always had the sacraments as a means of grace in every generation. My thesis is that God’s people saved by grace are found in many Christian traditions that appear divided unnecessarily. My call is for Christian unity throughout the visible body of Christ from all Christian traditions within the ecumenical creeds. We have great Christian unity within the orthodox doctrines of the faith.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

To which denomination do you belong? Or are you a non-denom protestant?

I’m simply a Christian saved by grace. I do attend a corporate church, but don’t identify with my local church just like Catholics do. The visible church is so much bigger than the particular church that I attend. Christ is not divided in reality as we seem to make it when we identify with a particular tradition, or denomination. That’s my point… we can attend a Catholic Church, Protestant Church, or Orthodox Church… yet the bottom line is that we are sinners saved by grace which was merited for us by the person and work of Jesus Christ.

 

[PA650]

I’m simply a Christian saved by grace. I do attend a corporate church, but don’t identify with my local church just like Catholics do. The visible church is so much bigger than the particular church that I attend. Christ is not divided in reality as we seem to make it when we identify with a particular tradition, or denomination. That’s my point… we can attend a Catholic Church, Protestant Church, or Orthodox Church… yet the bottom line is that we are sinners saved by grace which was merited for us by the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Although admirable, your opinion ignores the fact that Christ has established a Church as other posters have commented.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Although admirable, your opinion ignores the fact that Christ has established a Church as other posters have commented.

I do understand the Catholic distinctive of being the one true church in which Christ established. From my perspective, Christ purchased each and every member of His body which consists of Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christians who don’t fit neatly into those traditions. So, I respect your distinctively Catholic belief, but somehow the truth of being purchased by His blood seems more weighty than Christ establishing a visible church. For those whom Christ purchased are united into His eternal body (eternal church).