Catholics ARE "Christians"; so why aren't all Christians Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Padres1969 said:
I could ask you the same thing. Why hasn’t the RCC joined the Anglican Communion or with the Orthodox for example? The differences may be minor, but that doesn’t mean we don’t consider them important.
Click to expand...
Because Roman Catholics don’t think that the differences are minor, but rather they are infallible truths which cannot be changed.
 
Padres1969 said:
PJM;14155191:
Problem with those passages, they read differently if you see Christ as having one universal Church not restricted to just the RCC or just the Orthodox as both claim. 🤷
Click to expand...
But that would still mean a Universal Church with leaders who hold and teach substantial different things. Leaders who do not have the same mind and judgment as Paul leads us to do.
Click to expand...
 
Padres1969 said:
Problem with those passages, they read differently if you see Christ as having one universal Church not restricted to just the RCC or just the Orthodox as both claim. 🤷
Click to expand...
And we can say much the same to you in reverse. :cool:
 
PJM said:
Technically correct, but from a more insightful and right understanding, a “half-brother” is a more APT term.

** scborromeo.org/ccc.htm**

Catechism of the RCC

846 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. 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.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own,**** do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

“Many” dear friend is NOT “All” essential

Here are the biblical evidences of the position of Christ and HIS CC. Note please the singular tense words chosen by Jesus {GOD}

Mt.-1-2
"And having called his twelve disciples together, **he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, **. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,

Mt.16: 18-20
And I {GOD] say to THEE: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU PETER] this rock I will build 2my MY CHURCH {singular and a church cannot be separated fron its one set of Faith beliefs} , and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT [singular} [/COLOR]. And I will give to THEE {all of them implied here}** the keys of the kingdom of heaven.** And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Eph 2:20-23 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord.

Jn 15: 17-21
Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.** He saith TO HIM PETER Feed my lambs.**

He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith TO HIM PETER: Feed my lambs.
Click to expand...
because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.** He said TO HIM PETER: Feed my sheep.**

Jn 17:17-20
Sanctify THEM in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have SEND THEM {directly and exclusively was Christ intent} into the world. [19**] And FOR THEM} ** do I sanctify myself, that THEY also may be sanctified IN TRUTH. [20]** And not for THEM only do I pray, but for them also who through THEIR WORD shall believe in me**;**

Mt 28:19-20
Going therefore, teach YOU all nations;**{Again direct, singular and exclusive by Christ intent} ** baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

.

As evidenced by the bible passages I quoted and shared, your church’s position is both biblically and historically weak. Christ FOUNDED the Church that He empowered Peter to run on his behalf.

In order for God to be GOD “All good things perfected”; Jesus MUST be both Fair and Just… Jesus MUST pass final judgment upon each of us based NOT on what we choose to believe and accept, NO, rather it has to be on what He Christ has made POSSIBLE for us to know and belief.

Pope Benedict said this about truth:

“THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH AND MY TRUTH, OR THERE WOULD BE NO TRUTH.” … To which I add AMEN!

God Bless!
Patrick {the OP}

Appreciate your efforts however only one of those verses ie Matt. 16:18-20 speak to me of anything that could be proof of the primacy of Peter.
 
Originally Posted by PJM View Post
Correct, BUT is that biblically GOD"S Divine Will?
God Bless you
Patrick [end quote]

Here my friend is Webster’s definition of “ONE” which works for me

one
adjective \ˈwən
Simple Definition of ONE
• : having the value of 1
• —used to refer to a single person or thing
• —used before a noun to indicate that someone or something is part of a group of similar people or things

Full Definition of ONE
  1. 1: being a single unit or thing
  2. 2a : being one in particular b : being preeminently what is indicated
  3. 3a : being the same in kind or quality b (1) : constituting a unified entity of two or more components (2) : being in agreement or union
  4. 4a : some 1 b : being a certain individual specified by name
  5. 5: only 2a
You speak of “minor differences” within Christianity

Right off the bat I HAVE to disagree with the term “minor”. First in comparing Catholicism with the Protestant communities.

Catholics hold to what the bible actually teaches {please feel free to prove me wrong here}

One True God {Triune}

One God can {and therefore does have} just one set of faith beliefs; those expressed by “MY Church” Mt. 16:18 singular, today’s RCC, who alone can {is enabled by the HS to teach and share the FULLNESS of God’s One True set of Faith beliefs. Mt 16:15-19, Mt 10:1-8, John 17:17-20 & Mt. 28:18-20

Yahweh “One Chosen People” {Exo. 6:7} and Jesus “My Church”; which cannot be separated from its one set of Faith beliefs.

That this last point is recognized world wide is evident in the fact that while the CC has 23 branches; ALL of which hold to the same ONE set of Faith beliefs; the post reformations churches number in the thousands all holding differing faith -belief sets; a solid indicator that they do NOT hold these differences to be “minor.”

God Bless you my friend,

Patrick end quote
Padres1969 said:
Problem with those passages, they read differently if you see Christ as having one universal Church not restricted to just the RCC or just the Orthodox as both claim. 🤷
Click to expand...
You’re response is impossible:) Here’s why

The Bible

The Bible was fully authored by the end of the 1st Century or VERY early 2nd century

The Cannon of the bible was set in the 4th century

The reformation was NOT to take place until the 16th century

The ONLY Christian until AD 1054 and the Great Eastern Schism were today’s Catholic Church

THEREFORE
Every mention in the bible of “church” or “one is” by Christ intent to apply directly and exclusively to today’s RCC, the One True Church desired and founded by Christ

It is impossible to separate a 'Church" from the faith beliefs of that "church"

No where in the bible or Christian history can it be shown that either Yahweh or Christ EVER accepted ANY competing sets of faith beliefs OTHER than what they themselves taught. Hence the thousands of differing SETS of faith beliefs within the Protest {means to “ProTEST”} are factually competing with Christ ONE set of faith beliefs.

God Bless you

Patrick
 
rcwitness said:
And I respect your faith. You have foundational faith that offers salvation and eternal life!
Click to expand...
INSERTED BY PJM

SAVED ?
From the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church

**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. 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.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
I dont, however, respect disobedience to the Bishop of Rome, as a pastor over the whole flock/house. I do not believe this comes from faith, but human indifference.
Click to expand...
Paul warned the Corinthians of following the leaders who Baptized them as though they were distinct and taught different gospels. Christ crucified was his call. The Eucharist is this very thing. This is why the Church calls His Eucharist central to the faith.
Click to expand...
The Catholic faith calls us to centralize His Eucharist in our lives, worship, devotion, and brotherhood.
Click to expand...
When I was searching what Church to worship at, and decided to give the one who calls itself the original a chance, I was so pleasantly surprised when I went to Mass and discovered how central Jesus is! The concept that we follow a pope and not Jesus is a myth. And when I went to Mass, I saw that myth dispelled.
Click to expand...
Implied here is that a different set of faith beliefs MIGHT assure ones salvation. While true it is VERY conditional. Amen

Patrick
 
quote Originally Posted by Tomdstone View Post
If the differences are minor, why hasn’t the Episcopal church joined the Roman Catholic Church ? end quote
Padres1969 said:
I could ask you the same thing. Why hasn’t the RCC joined the Anglican Communion or with the Orthodox for example? The differences may be minor, but that doesn’t mean we don’t consider them important.
Click to expand...
AND THE ANSWER IS:)

T[1] here is ONLY one true God {the 1st Commandment}

[2] Even GOD can have only One SET of faith beliefs which He entrusted to His Catholic Church some 1,500+ YEARS before the reformation’s multitude of differing and therefore competing sets of faith beliefs

Nowhere in the bible [PLEASE try to prove me wrong here} is there evidence that either Yahweh or Christ {the SAME God} ever approved of or tolerated OTHER & and therefore competing sets of faith beliefs.

.[3] Just as Yahweh choice just "one people {TO HOLD JUST ONE SET OF FAITH BELIEFS]; Christ followed His Own Tradition by instituting just “My Church” {Mt 16:18},

Further proven by the following If and WHEN one acknowledges God’s intended use of singular tense words.

Mt 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20

easy look up of these passages can be found at:… http://drbo.org/

My friend, wising and saying so does not make it fact:thumbsup:

God Bless you

Patrick
 
quote Originally Posted by PJM View Post
Problem with those passages, they read differently if you see Christ as having one universal Church not restricted to just the RCC or just the Orthodox as both claim.end quote

JUST AN FYI HERE, I {PJM] DID NOT POST THAT COMMENT
rcwitness said:
Padres1969;14155701:
But that would still mean a Universal Church with leaders who hold and teach substantial different things. Leaders who do not have the same mind and judgment as Paul leads us to do.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Wannano said:
Appreciate your efforts however only one of those verses ie Matt. 16:18-20 speak to me of anything that could be proof of the primacy of Peter.
Click to expand...
Thank you

So ONE is insufficient? And I’m surprised that the ONE you selected in Mt 16:15-20:thumbsup:

I can supply both historical proof and a list of 5 “Peter FIRST” if you’d care to send me a private message:)

Space limits don’t make doing so here practicle

God BLESS you

Patrick {PJM} here on CAF.
 
PJM said:
quote Originally Posted by Tomdstone View Post
If the differences are minor, why hasn’t the Episcopal church joined the Roman Catholic Church ? end quote

AND THE ANSWER IS:)

T[1] here is ONLY one true God {the 1st Commandment}

[2] Even GOD can have only One SET of faith beliefs which He entrusted to His Catholic Church some 1,500+ YEARS before the reformation’s multitude of differing and therefore competing sets of faith beliefs

Nowhere in the bible [PLEASE try to prove me wrong here} is there evidence that either Yahweh or Christ {the SAME God} ever approved of or tolerated OTHER & and therefore competing sets of faith beliefs.

.[3] Just as Yahweh choice just "one people {TO HOLD JUST ONE SET OF FAITH BELIEFS]; Christ followed His Own Tradition by instituting just “My Church” {Mt 16:18},

Further proven by the following If and WHEN one acknowledges God’s intended use of singular tense words.

Mt 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20

easy look up of these passages can be found at:… http://drbo.org/

My friend, wising and saying so does not make it fact:thumbsup:

God Bless you

Patrick
Click to expand...
Padres says that the differences are minor, but I guess that is from an Episcopalian POV?
 
Horton said:
  1. Yes Catholic are Christians, the original Christians. Fought for by the apostles of Christ, formed from the Word incarnate, continuing with the fullness of truth.
  2. All Christians are catholic in as far as they have a valid baptism, through the form & matter. They may be a bit separate from the Catholic church but they are baptized.
Just a note here. Your comment should read, non-Catholic Christians are a subset of Catholicism. Historically speaking the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for 1500 years. The rest broke off from the Catholic Church, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
The orthodox Catholics would beg to differ
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
The orthodox Catholics would beg to differ
Click to expand...
True if by that you mean the Eastern Orthodox. At about 1050 there were five Patriarchates. In 1054 Rome excommunicated Cerularius of Constantinople and his followers. But as time passed, all four Patriarchates remained in communion, but Rome did not consider itself to be in union with them.
It seems more reasonable to say that Rome broke away rather that to say that
Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria all broke away from Rome, but not with each other?
 
Tomdstone said:
True if by that you mean the Eastern Orthodox. At about 1050 there were five Patriarchates. In 1054 Rome excommunicated Cerularius of Constantinople and his followers. But as time passed, all four Patriarchates remained in communion, but Rome did not consider itself to be in union with them.
It seems more reasonable to say that Rome broke away rather that to say that
Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria all broke away from Rome, but not with each other?
Click to expand...
Thats a bit revisionist. Antioch and Alexandria had already been a different Communion since Ephesus. They were replaced by Patriarchs dependant on Constantinople. So one could argue Constantiople had the support of Jerusalem and other Constantinopolitan appointees. Not “all 4 other Patriarchates” per se
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top