Christian Unity

[paarsurrey]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=165
What is the difference between Mormons and Islam?

Originally Posted by majick275:
that you are aligned with an ahmadi muslim certainly speaks volumes
“aligned with?”

Originally posted by dainaiad:
Because he recognizes the oddity of all these different groups who reserve the title to themselves, and kick each other out of the ‘club?’

Indeed, it’s delicious. If every Christian group who denied the title “Christian” to another were correct, then there would indeed be no Christians on the planet.

Hi

I think dainaiad is logical in saying If every Christian group who denied the title “Christian” to another were correct, then there would indeed be no Christians on the planet.

Since I am for unity of all 32000+ denominations of Christianity into one United Christendom, I think to start with every Christian denomination should at least respect other fellow Christians to make a room for others to remain within the Christianity at least.

Let it be the first step towards Christian Unity. The Catholics should resolve not to throw out from the fold of Christianity other denominations be they Protestants, Mormons or JWs etc; and similarly the Protestants should not throw out Catholics and others from the same.

It should not be difficult, I think.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishan

Thanks

 

[MDK]

My profile is correct, I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I do understand that you think “Catholic” is a superior name to “Christian”. That is your opinion. If you want to separate your “label” from Christ, that is your choice. I understand completely what’s being discussed, but maybe I’m jumping ahead a little too fast for you in my posts, so I’ll slow down. Feel free to let me know if I’m still going over your head and I promise I will slow down for you even more, just come up with some more of your ridiculous accusations and I’ll know that your having trouble keeping up.

Now, may you and God forgive me for writing the insults above, I don’t want to trade insults. It was just an example of how your posts come across. Is that truly that way that you think Christians, or Catholics, should discuss things. You began and ended with personal attacks and insults. In 1 Corithians 12:13 Paul says that we have all been baptized into one body by the same Spirit, and we have alll been given one Spirit to drink.

Thanks… I got a good laugh out of your post. You’re a little arrogant, but funny. I forgive you, and had given you the truth without attempting personal insult (it’s likely your arrogance that makes you interpret correction as an insult). I’m not insulted by you, because your denials are like praise from a person who does know truth.

On a very serious note, you need to learn something about Catholicism, because you really don’t know much from what you’ve posted. You also need humility, because your arrogance of thinking you already know, will keep you from learning.

You’re very wrong what you say about the differences in terms. Catholic is the specific, original and true Christian belief. Just calling oneself Christian is nonspecific. Calling oneself Christian in the year 100 AD would be the same as Catholic. Now, so many have split off, that it could also mean our separated brethren.

For instance true Catholics are Christians in the truest sense. Other Christians including those who call themselves Christian but are not, believe in false doctrines. Some who call themselves Catholic believe falsely as well (ahem), and perhaps need to study the faith and Church history. You can start by rereading my posts in this thread which will help you if you really seek truth. If you do not, then there is no way to help you, except just to pray for you. There are also many good articles on Catholic Answers, including “This Rock.”

 

[John1]

The Scriptures don’t record Christ as using the word “Trinity” either. Do you believe in and accept the Trinity to describe the consubstantial relationship of the three Persons in one God, or do you have some problem with or reject that doctrine since Christ didn’t actually use Trinity as a descriptive word?

The one entity simply called “the Church” in Scriptures was later called the Catholic Church to better describe its worldwide nature. It was the same entity when it was called “the Church” as when descriptive term was added. The people who were members of the early Church were now in the same early Church which now had a more descriptive name.

If you simply changed your name to “Individual John1”, would you automatically be a different person all of a sudden, or would that just better describe you as an individual, and not multiple people or a group?

Hi MDK,

Yes, I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the Holy Trinity,or the fullness of God. I don’t know what “consubstantial” means exactly, as it relates to “the doctrine”.

As for your second point, remeber your the one who brought up this entity changing with the name stuff, trying to say that I had implied that somehow. Actually I think we agree somewhat, at least to the point that even if you call a Christian a Catholic, that doesn’t stop them from being a Christian. Isn’t that what you are saying, or am I still misunderstanding?

 

[MDK]

Hi MDK,

Yes, I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the Holy Trinity,or the fullness of God. I don’t know what “consubstantial” means exactly, as it relates to “the doctrine”.

As for your second point, remeber your the one who brought up this entity changing with the name stuff, trying to say that I had implied that somehow. Actually I think we agree somewhat, at least to the point that even if you call a Christian a Catholic, that doesn’t stop them from being a Christian. Isn’t that what you are saying, or am I still misunderstanding?

Unfortunately, you really don’t understand what was being said.

You had denied that the early followers of Christ, who at some point started calling themselves Christian, were part of the Catholic Church. Your reason was because Christ was not recorded in Scriptures as using the term “Catholic Church” (just as He was not recorded as using the term “Trinity”). Your response in support of the doctrine of the Trinity means you can no longer use your argument that since Christ was not recorded as using the term “Catholic Church” that the Christian Church He started was different than the Catholic Church. They are one and the same. I used an example of name change and the entity remaining the same to give an example of what can happen. The Church built by Christ, started at Pentecost is the Catholic Church. That is simply the truth. What problem do you have with the truth?

 

[John1]

Thanks… I got a good laugh out of your post. You’re a little arrogant, but funny. I forgive you, and had given you the truth without attempting personal insult (it’s likely your arrogance that makes you interpret correction as an insult). I’m not insulted by you, because your denials are like praise from a person who does know truth.

On a very serious note, you need to learn something about Catholicism, because you really don’t know much from what you’ve posted. You also need humility, because your arrogance of thinking you already know, will keep you from learning.

You’re very wrong what you say about the differences in terms. Catholic is the specific, original and true Christian belief. Just calling oneself Christian is nonspecific. Calling oneself Christian in the year 100 AD would be the same as Catholic. Now, so many have split off, that it could also mean our separated brethren.

For instance true Catholics are Christians in the truest sense. Other Christians including those who call themselves Christian but are not, believe in false doctrines. Some who call themselves Catholic believe falsely as well (ahem), and perhaps need to study the faith and Church history. You can start by rereading my posts in this thread which will help you if you really seek truth. If you do not, then there is no way to help you, except just to pray for you.

I’m glad that you forgive me. Now be honest, I didn’t mistake your intentional insults and slurs now did I. You meant to insult me. You realize now that sort of behavior is not what Christians, or at least true Christians should have toward one another. I know you want to be a “defender of the faith”, and that’s wonderful, but you need to remember to act like a Christian when doing so. I think you’ll be happy to know that I did change my profile and I thank you for pointing out that I should. I would appreciate your prayers and I will offer my prayers for you. If at anytime I have offended you Miss, I sincerely apologize.

 

[Genesis315]

Remember, first, that the unity Christ prayed for is something His Church always has and always will have–the goal is for others who have been baptized into Christ to partake of that full, visible unity. Thus, the Church seeks that all men partake in that unity which she can never lose.

Here is what Pope John Paul II says on this topic:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

And here is what the Second Vatican Council decreed (this one should probably be read first):
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Here’s a couple snippets from Pope John Paul that are especially worth noting:

The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, “especially in what concerns God and his Church”,33 and adherence to truth’s demands. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.

In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add, it is not just a synchronic unity, but also a diachronic unity–that is, it is a unity also with those who came before

 

[John1]

How do we join with the Lord? Do you really understand what is being discussed?

1 Cor 6:17 - “But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit”

If you look at the previous sentence 1 Cor 6:16, Paul speaks about a man joining himself to a harlot, two in one flesh. Then following in 1 Cor 6:18, Paul is still speaking about fleshly union… fornication. The please also see 1 Cor 6:20 “For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.” We must unite with Christ, and bear Christ in our bodies.

How do we join ourselves with Christ? The answer is in the Most Holy Eucharist. We take the fullness of revealed truth as a whole, working together. We must unite ourselves with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist (for reference, Protestant churches can’t consecrate a host due to no valid priesthood). For another piece of the picture, please see John 6:54-55 “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”

The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, and has been so from the beginning. The is why the Catholic Church puts such emphasis on the Eucharistic Christ, and calls this the greatest Sacrament.

Hi, MDK,

I think if you read just a bit deeper into 1 Corinthians you will find in chapter 12:12-13:

12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves [4] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

and in chapter 15:35-49 the following:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; [5] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall [6] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

The Eucharist is the very real spiritual presence of Christ. That’s why in John 6:63 Jesus says “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

 

[John1]

Unfortunately, you really don’t understand what was being said.

You had denied that the early followers of Christ, who at some point started calling themselves Christian, were part of the Catholic Church. Your reason was because Christ was not recorded in Scriptures as using the term “Catholic Church” (just as He was not recorded as using the term “Trinity”). Your response in support of the doctrine of the Trinity means you can no longer use your argument that since Christ was not recorded as using the term “Catholic Church” that the Christian Church He started was different than the Catholic Church. They are one and the same. I used an example of name change and the entity remaining the same to give an example of what can happen. The Church built by Christ, started at Pentecost is the Catholic Church. That is simply the truth. What problem do you have with the truth?

Do you just enjoy making false accusations? I never denied that at some point in the second century A.D. some of the Christians started refering to themselves as “Catholics”. I never said that the early Catholic Church was a different Church than the Christian Church Christ had started, I just said that Christ didn’t use the word “catholic” to name His Church. I said that from “The History of the Church” by Eusebius it was plain that the early Christians called themselves “Christians” as opposed to “Catholics”. You brought up the Trinity, because you were grasping at straws. You are the one who seems offended at the term “Christian”. Are you a Christian, “yes” or “no”? If you re-read my earlier posts you will see that I had replied to an earlier post in which the person had commented that the Catholic Church pre-dated any other Church.
I commented that actually the Christian Church predated the Catholic Church, meaning that the body of believers were called Christians before they were called Catholics. What I said was 100% truth! Do you dispute the accuracy of my comment? Obviously you jumped in without knowing exactly what was being said, and immediately you became defensive, and then shortly afterward really offensive.

 

[MDK]

Do you just enjoy making false accusations? I never denied that at some point in the second century A.D. some of the Christians started refering to themselves as “Catholics”. I never said that the early Catholic Church was a different Church than the Christian Church Christ had started, I just said that Christ didn’t use the word “catholic” to name His Church. I said that from “The History of the Church” by Eusebius it was plain that the early Christians called themselves “Christians” as opposed to “Catholics”. You brought up the Trinity, because you were grasping at straws. You are the one who seems offended at the term “Christian”. Are you a Christian, “yes” or “no”? If you re-read my earlier posts you will see that I had replied to an earlier post in which the person had commented that the Catholic Church pre-dated any other Church.
I commented that actually the Christian Church predated the Catholic Church, meaning that the body of believers were called Christians before they were called Catholics. What I said was 100% truth! Do you dispute the accuracy of my comment? Obviously you jumped in without knowing exactly what was being said, and immediately you became defensive, and then shortly afterward really offensive.

The evidence shows that I haven’t made any false accusations that one may or may not enjoy. To answer your question, I don’t like them, so I don’t do them.

You still don’t understand what I said… for some reason (arrogance, maybe?). What you’ve done is to create a false understanding, and then proceed to refute your false understanding (straw man argument). Your statement is still a distortion to equate adoption of the name Catholic with establishing a different Church as though it were now different from the “Christian Church” that had existed the millisecond before name adoption. This is an important distinction, because otherwise there is a false teaching that these are different Churches. Correctly, one could say that the Church first had no name, then adopted the name Catholic. To say there was the “Christian Church,” then the “Catholic Church” is misleading. Nothing preceded the Catholic Church in Christianity, as this one Church goes all the way to Pentecost.

What about the Church before any common name at all was given to the followers of Christ? There was a time in “the Church” between Pentecost and when the name Catholic descriptive name was adopted. However, according to your logic, why don’t you claim that there would then be three early Churches… first “the Church” then “Christian Church” then “Catholic Church.” Truthfully, this is simply not the case.

What you said was not 100% true, but it’s good that you’re starting to add some of the wording that I had presented all along, although you’re still not there fully yet. However, you’re simply wrong in saying that The Christian Church preceded the Catholic Church, as if they’re different Churches. They’re the same exact Church. It’s like saying you preceded yourself before receiving your name. I really don’t have hope you’ll understand that, but it’s used to illustrate the crazy manner of what you have promoted.

The truth is that the entire Church started at Pentecost started to be called Catholic. Not part of it, all of it. It’s plain that all the Christians were Catholic… it’s the same Church… no difference. That you don’t understand this is amazing.

Please go back an reread my posts as many times as you need to understand them. So far, you’re batting average is pretty close to zero for fully understanding my posts. If you don’t even understand the little I have written here, how can you possibly understand the basics of Catholicism?

How is it that I would I be offended at the term Christian? I am one.

 

[MDK]

Hi, MDK,

I think if you read just a bit deeper into 1 Corinthians you will find in chapter 12:12-13:

12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves [4] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

and in chapter 15:35-49 the following:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; [5] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall [6] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

The Eucharist is the very real spiritual presence of Christ. That’s why in John 6:63 Jesus says “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

What you’ve posted is an errant teaching in regard to the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ which should be adored. Christ tells us that His flesh is not merely earthly flesh. You should never receive the Most Blessed Sacrament if you only believe it is simply a Spiritual Presence of Christ, as that is receiving unworthily. I believe the written and unwritten Tradition of the Catholic Church, as taught by the Catholic Church. At some point, your continued support of errant teaching becomes heresy.

You really need to learn the Catechism, which is what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Otherwise, you get confused and off track, as you have done in many of your posts on this thread.

 

[MDK]

How will for example fundamentalist Baptists as a whole denomination (ie, not individual baptists converting here and there) ever put themselves under the authority of the Pope or come to say prayers and devotions to the immaculately conceived, ever sinless, perpetual virgin Mary, or put themselves under the teaching authority of the Magesterium? IMO…it ain’t gonna happen. I believe that there will be Catholics and Protestants until Jesus’ second coming. Great doctrinal divisions will, I believe, only then be resolved with Christ letting it be known which doctrines have been correct and which were false, bringing about unity. In short, yes Christian unity, but only at the second coming. (sounds pessimistic )

Christ has already let the world know which doctrines are correct, via His deposit of faith, and His “Prime Minister” which the King left in His place as He was returning to Heaven. The Magisterium teaches infallibly. The Pope is the visible sign of unity so we would know which doctrines and dogmas are correct and could be one. The Eucharist bonds us together with Christ as we partake in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The Baptists, Methodists, non-denominational fundamentalists, and others reject these to their own peril.

 

[ferdie]

Remember, first, that the unity Christ prayed for is something His Church always has and always will have–the goal is for others who have been baptized into Christ to partake of that full, visible unity. Thus, the Church seeks that all men partake in that unity which she can never lose.

Here is what Pope John Paul II says on this topic:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

And here is what the Second Vatican Council decreed (this one should probably be read first):
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Here’s a couple snippets from Pope John Paul that are especially worth noting:

Thank you. They are both long read, but interesting.

 

[John1]

The evidence shows that I haven’t made any false accusations that one may or may not enjoy. To answer your question, I don’t like them, so I don’t do them.

You still don’t understand what I said… for some reason (arrogance, maybe?). What you’ve done is to create a false understanding, and then proceed to refute your false understanding (straw man argument). Your statement is still a distortion to equate adoption of the name Catholic with establishing a different Church as though it were now different from the “Christian Church” that had existed the millisecond before name adoption. This is an important distinction, because otherwise there is a false teaching that these are different Churches. Correctly, one could say that the Church first had no name, then adopted the name Catholic. To say there was the “Christian Church,” then the “Catholic Church” is misleading. Nothing preceded the Catholic Church in Christianity, as this one Church goes all the way to Pentecost.

What about the Church before any common name at all was given to the followers of Christ? There was a time in “the Church” between Pentecost and when the name Catholic descriptive name was adopted. However, according to your logic, why don’t you claim that there would then be three early Churches… first “the Church” then “Christian Church” then “Catholic Church.” Truthfully, this is simply not the case.

What you said was not 100% true, but it’s good that you’re starting to add some of the wording that I had presented all along, although you’re still not there fully yet. However, you’re simply wrong in saying that The Christian Church preceded the Catholic Church, as if they’re different Churches. They’re the same exact Church. It’s like saying you preceded yourself before receiving your name. I really don’t have hope you’ll understand that, but it’s used to illustrate the crazy manner of what you have promoted.

The truth is that the entire Church started at Pentecost started to be called Catholic. Not part of it, all of it. It’s plain that all the Christians were Catholic… it’s the same Church… no difference. That you don’t understand this is amazing.

Please go back an reread my posts as many times as you need to understand them. So far, you’re batting average is pretty close to zero for fully understanding my posts. If you don’t even understand the little I have written here, how can you possibly understand the basics of Catholicism?

How is it that I would I be offended at the term Christian? I am one.

So your understanding is that the Body of Christ was known at Pentecost by the term “Catholic”? If so, you’re 100% in error. You say that I can’t understand you’re posts and that equates with not understanding Catholicism. I think you need to look up the definition of arrogance, then pride, and then you should look in the mirror. I think that you need to study the early history Christianity, the history of the Church, and the writings of the early Church fathers. Then you should really study the Bible and find out how Christians should behave? Like I’ve said before, the Bible is clear on how we can recognize other Christians. From your first post you’ve made false accusations and you have twisted my words. St. Paul, Peter, and John wrote in their letters that there would be people that do such things.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Just to add, it is not just a synchronic unity, but also a diachronic unity–that is, it is a unity also with those who came before

##** It’s pretty chronic whatever one does with it **

 

[ferdie]

Bingo!

Sorry, I don’t get it, bingo what?

 

[John1]

What you’ve posted is an errant teaching in regard to the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ which should be adored. Christ tells us that His flesh is not merely earthly flesh. You should never receive the Most Blessed Sacrament if you only believe it is simply a Spiritual Presence of Christ, as that is receiving unworthily. I believe the written and unwritten Tradition of the Catholic Church, as taught by the Catholic Church. At some point, your continued support of errant teaching becomes heresy.

You really need to learn the Catechism, which is what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Otherwise, you get confused and off track, as you have done in many of your posts on this thread.

Okay, now you’re saying that St. Paul’s teaching is in error! By your own words it sounds like anything that you can’t understand is “errant”. Amazing, at least you’re consistant, although consistantly wrong.

 

[MDK]

So your understanding is that the Body of Christ was known at Pentecost by the term “Catholic”? If so, you’re 100% in error. You say that I can’t understand you’re posts and that equates with not understanding Catholicism. I think you need to look up the definition of arrogance, then pride, and then you should look in the mirror. I think that you need to study the early history Christianity, the history of the Church, and the writings of the early Church fathers. Then you should really study the Bible and find out how Christians should behave? Like I’ve said before, the Bible is clear on how we can recognize other Christians. From your first post you’ve made false accusations and you have twisted my words. St. Paul, Peter, and John wrote in their letters that there would be people that do such things.

Yes, the Apostles warned of people who would distort and promote false teachings, and I appreciate your warning… now, please go look in the mirror to see firsthand one of these who has promoted distortion and misleading statements. I recommend you please admonish them in no uncertain terms to bring them inline with the true teachings of the Church built by Christ, started at Pentecost, which is known today as the Catholic Church.

For example, please show us my quote where I stated that the “Body of Christ was known at Pentecost by the **term **Catholic.” You won’t, because I didn’t and you simply distorted what I said… once again.

Please honestly attempt to understand what was said… namely the Catholic Church traces it’s origin to Pentecost. There was no interim Church, only a Church without a descriptive name. As I’ve explicitly stated, the Church was not called Catholic at the time of Pentecost. However, the Church started at Pentecost is the Catholic Church.

Simply stated, it’s misleading for anyone to say that the “Christian Church” preceded the “Catholic Church.” It’s correct to say that the evidence shows that followers of Christ in the early Church called themselves Christian, likely before the Church built by Christ was given a more descriptive name. It’s also correct to say that the Catholic Church (which is most authentically and truly Christian) traces it’s beginning to Pentecost. Although, we do not know of a more descriptive name for the Church which started at Pentecost, until we see that by around 100 AD (and possibly earlier), that this Church built by Christ (which started at Pentecost) became known commonly as the Catholic Church.

 

[MDK]

Okay, now you’re saying that St. Paul’s teaching is in error! By your own words it sounds like anything that you can’t understand is “errant”. Amazing, at least you’re consistant, although consistantly wrong.

No, I’m describing that the error is in your understanding of St. Paul’s teaching. The Catholic Church teaches without error on the Eucharist, and I had faithfully presented that teaching. Please go reread my words until you understand. Better yet, please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Phillipos]

As long as their exists a seperation because of essential doctrine i.e. real presence, communion of saints, pergatory, baptism; true union can not be achieved. Heck not even other Protestant denominations can have union with one another because of their doctrinal differences. A Presbyterian and Baptist can’t have real union because their pictures of Jesus are so much different. One’s Jesus died and saved those whom he chose. The other Jesus died for all and leaves the response for salvation as everyone’s own individual choice.

We can work together becaue of our commonality in the belief of his death and resurrection, but true union can not be attained.

True union can not be really reached with the Orthodox Church because of the scismatic relationship that has existed since 1054. Even though both share the same 7 sacraments, the scism still exists.

thebereanlife.com