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

[PJM]

quote
Originally Posted by Horton View Post

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.
end quote

The orthodox Catholics would beg to differ

OK, but the GREAT Easter Schism took place over a thousand years after Jesus GOD} had instituted His RCC.

They Do however have Direct Apostolic Succession and the seven sacraments validly.

Still only the RCC {s} have then validly and licitly AND can share the FULLNESS of God’s true faith. as pointed out also in the above post:thumbsup:

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[Padres1969]

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?

Never thought of it that way. But it’s true, the real break was between Constantinople and Rome. As you say, the other historical Patriarchies remained in communion with each other even after Rome severed ties. Of course from a Catholic POV I’d say that underestimates the import of the Roman patriarch’s primacy.

 

[Padres1969]

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

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

The bolded is an inaccurate statement to say the least. Even Roman Catholics acknowledge there were splits between Early Christians that predated the Great Schism (for example today’s Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox who were separated from other Early Christians in the 5th century). And the Great Schism itself was not a sudden event in 1054, but a division that had been growing (and was a de-facto split) for centuries before the mutual excommunications between Constantinople and Rome.

 

[PJM]

The bolded is an inaccurate statement to say the least. Even Roman Catholics acknowledge there were splits between Early Christians that predated the Great Schism (for example today’s Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox who were separated from other Early Christians in the 5th century). And the Great Schism itself was not a sudden event in 1054, but a division that had been growing (and was a de-facto split) for centuries before the mutual excommunications between Constantinople and Rome.

The ONLY historical breaks in FAITH beliefs were /are the Orthodox in AD 1054.

Difference is practices, BUT not differences in essential-Faith beliefs and STILL associated with the RCC.

If you have evidence of some others, PLEASE share it.

Indeed the GES was a protracted {POWER BASED} event, that culminated in AD 1054.

Thank you & God Bless you

Patrick

 

[Padres1969]

**The ONLY historical breaks in FAITH beliefs were /are the Orthodox in AD 1054. **

Difference is practices, BUT not differences in essential-Faith beliefs and STILL associated with the RCC.

If you have evidence of some others, PLEASE share it.

Indeed the GES was a protracted {POWER BASED} event, that culminated in AD 1054.

Thank you & God Bless you

Patrick

That’s completely incorrect. Please look up the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East for starters… Both split over matters of faith in the 400’s. More than 6 centuries before the Great Schism. And as mentioned, the Great Schism was the last act of that split, a split which had been growing for several centuries.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s completely incorrect. Please look up the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East for starters… Both split over matters of faith in the 400’s. More than 6 centuries before the Great Schism. And as mentioned, the Great Schism was the last act of that split, a split which had been growing for several centuries.

I agree.

What it comes down to, in my understanding of divisions and schisms within Christianity, is that both sides are usually always coming from a “certain tradition”. It’s not just a matter of creating a new doctrine or practice. But there should be, and there is, a higher Tradition to rely on in these situations. That being the direction taken by the Bishop of Rome.

However, I definitely think that other Bishops have a right to appeal to this Bishop with a heavy conviction, in order to be fully convinced that it is an official decree with the lawful authority as the successor of the Apostle Peter.

After this is established, those who continue in factions and endless quarrels are to be subject to excommunication with justification.

 

[Wannano]

I agree.

What it comes down to, in my understanding of divisions and schisms within Christianity, is that both sides are usually always coming from a “certain tradition”. It’s not just a matter of creating a new doctrine or practice. But there should be, and there is, a higher Tradition to rely on in these situations. That being the direction taken by the Bishop of Rome.

However, I definitely think that other Bishops have a right to appeal to this Bishop with a heavy conviction, in order to be fully convinced that it is an official decree with the lawful authority as the successor of the Apostle Peter.

After this is established, those who continue in factions and endless quarrels are to be subject to excommunication with justification.

This point of view makes sense to me and I have no problem with it as it concerns factious members of the same Church. As I understand it, in times past the Church also mingled with politics had the clout to force people into accepting a religious doctrine even though they had no personal conviction of the doctrine. Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing.

 

[rcwitness]

This point of view makes sense to me and I have no problem with it as it concerns factious members of the same Church.

This comes from the point of view that there is no universal jurisdiction. There are churches, and there is The Church. The Church can and does allow variant practices by churches.

As I understand it, in times past the Church also mingled with politics had the clout to force people into accepting a religious doctrine even though they had no personal conviction of the doctrine. Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing.

This is not as simple as it sounds. Freedom of religion is definitely good. However, when that freedom is abused, it is not good. The point of contention has always been when individuals preach and teach opposing doctrines, especially in places already established by The Church.

You see, it’s not just a matter of not having the personal conviction of doctrines, but claiming the conviction that the Church is in error error even after sufficient attention given by the Church AND then going out and teaching people what the Church has judged as wrong.

 

[PJM]

And YES then their was Judas.

I don’t doubt the veracity of your claims, only the significant of them

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

That’s completely incorrect. Please look up the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East for starters… Both split over matters of faith in the 400’s. More than 6 centuries before the Great Schism. And as mentioned, the Great Schism was the last act of that split, a split which had been growing for several centuries.

I WILL do that and get back to you when I can [next week]

Thanks and God Bless you

Patrick

 

[Peter_J]

Never thought of it that way. But it’s true, the real break was between Constantinople and Rome.** As you say, the other historical Patriarchies remained in communion with each other even after Rome severed ties**.

Actually, the others remained in communion with Constantinople and with Rome after 1054.

 

[Peter_J]

The bolded is an inaccurate statement to say the least. Even Roman Catholics acknowledge there were splits between Early Christians that predated the Great Schism (for example today’s Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox who were separated from other Early Christians in the 5th century). And the Great Schism itself was not a sudden event in 1054, but a division that had been growing (and was a de-facto split) for centuries before the mutual excommunications between Constantinople and Rome.

I was a bit confused at first as to what bolded statement you mean (my fault, I guess, in that I didnt read the whole post that you quoted) but now I see it: “The ONLY Christian until AD 1054 and the Great Eastern Schism were today’s Catholic Church.”

If it makes you feel better I don’t agree with that statement either … but I seriously have to question whether you even need such reassurances to “feel better”. Hmmm.

 

[Rosebud77]

Whooooah…

Please can we not simply share what we have in common? Jesus, Leave the rest aside. In all its complications it can hide Him and destroy love.

I have friends in many traditions and none. We share what we have. Our love and our common need to help those in dire need.

As simple as children,

 

[georgetgonzales]

In my bible it says you aren’t to call another father but your Father in Heaven.

 

[georgetgonzales]

The name Christian predates all Protestant and Evangelical Churches by over a millennium.

 

[georgetgonzales]

In my bible it says you aren’t to call another father but your Father in Heaven.

 

[PJM]

That’s completely incorrect. Please look up the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East for starters… Both split over matters of faith in the 400’s. More than 6 centuries before the Great Schism. And as mentioned, the Great Schism was the last act of that split, a split which had been growing for several centuries.

I’m not sure after investigating as you suggested, that I {ME} would use the term “completely”, as it is a subjective description.

You ARE however correct in that two “Orthodox” churches were in SCHISM as a prelude to the "Great Eastern Schism of AD 1054.

I couldn’t locate any information of the sizes of these two churches at the time of their separation, but no doubt is was notable

Thank you for the church history lesson

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I agree.

What it comes down to, in my understanding of divisions and schisms within Christianity, is that both sides are usually always coming from a “certain tradition”. It’s not just a matter of creating a new doctrine or practice. But there should be, and there is, a higher Tradition to rely on in these situations. That being the direction taken by the Bishop of Rome.

However, I definitely think that other Bishops have a right to appeal to this Bishop with a heavy conviction, in order to be fully convinced that it is an official decree with the lawful authority as the successor of the Apostle Peter.

After this is established, those who continue in factions and endless quarrels are to be subject to excommunication with justification.

Good POST:thumbsup:

Thanks

PJM

 

[PJM]

I don’t completely disagree

BUT is trying to share our Catholic Faith, and it’s 2,000 years of tradition, Doctrine and history in a limited space is an extreme challenge…

While “not significant” is arguably incorrect, being of “less significance” seesm to ME suitable, in view of the scope and size of the worldwide RCC at the time.

God Bless you, and I certainly did not mean to alight the Orthodox

Patrick.

 

[PJM]

In my bible it says you aren’t to call another father but your Father in Heaven.

OK So the Bible then is in need of corrections??? See 2nd Tim 3:16-17

Luke 16:24
And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

John 8:53
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself?

Acts Of Apostles 7:2
Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan.

Romans 4:12
And might be the father of circumcision; not to them only, that are of the circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faithful, that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham.

James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?

Matthew 3:9
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

**Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith” **

Matthew 23:9
And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

Explained by Haydock’s Commentary:
Ver. 9-10. Call none your father … Neither be ye called masters, &c. The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Corinthians iv. 15,) and for our masters and teachers. (Challoner) — This name was a title of dignity: the presidents of the assembly of twenty-three judges where so called; the second judge of the sanhedrim, &c. (Bible de Vence) — Nothing is here forbidden but the contentious divisions, and self-assumed authority, of such as make themselves leaders and favourers of schisms and sects; as Donatus, Arius, Luther, Calvin, and innumerable others of very modern date. But by no means the title of father, attributed by the faith, piety, and confidence of good people, to their directors; for, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he is their only spiritual Father: If you have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers. (1 Corinthians iv. 15.

God Bless you

Patrick