Does God want everyone to be Catholic?

[PeaceInChrist]

Agree. That was from our view point, but the thread question is God’s viewpoint.
True , but much of what they believe had earlier origins. You had Ratranmus in 9th century on RP and Tyndale (maybe wycliffe) in 13 th century, and some form of antibaptists before them all . One can also point to a time in history when practices, and even doctrine were proclaimed by the CC . That is, not so easy to say the apostles did everything we do today. As an example, there is no evidence that the apostles held “confession”, and that the confessional is from around the 12Th (? ) century ,though confessing earlier.

C. S. Lewis said, “Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past”. I think his context was an unflattering papal history.

So, you point to heretical doctrine that was condemned through the Scriptural method of ecumenical council, on what grounds?

I am also rather sick of you being intellectually dishonest. You know darn well that the fathers spoke of penance/confession WELL before the 12th century. Quotes abound in the following article:

catholic.com/tracts/confession

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Welcome. No, God doesn’t like divisions and don’t recall it being a prerequisite to think otherwise to be Protestant. If one really tries, he can see a universal church, a catholic church. It depends on how free one is from parochialism.

I could swear I’ve linked you to the Fathers. When Ignatius, Clement, and Ireneaus speak of unification in the Church, do they speak of a fluffy, ‘I believe in Jesus and that’s all’ kind of unification? Or are they condemning heretics and schismatics who still proclaim Christ? Then, after Ireneaus, read the rest, as I am attempting to do. See if there is any change in the definition of unity and obedience to bishops, and with determination of doctrine. Go ahead. See what you come up with.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Of course. I was not comparing to when jesus walked the earth with the apostles for obviously the baptism in spirit had not happened. I was referring to first century church ,like 65 ad or 55 ad or 90 ad. Of course some things like the gentile engrafting were “ironed” out.Still one has to explain the phenomenom of growing from simple traditions and few,from a simpler creed (apostles) to many. Just look at the prolificness of Trent. A lot like our government .The biggest legislation once was roosevelt and social security( 150 pages) or was that civil rights ,all the way to obomination of obamacare and 2000 pages! .Like i said ,it is in our nature to legislate perfection,utopia,to "judaize’.It is also in our nature to say this good,better ,more mature. If the shoe fits…

I believe the essentials still are simple.

If you’re talking about encyclicals and the like, they are often more wordy than I need, but if I sit down and read one, it makes perfect sense. It’s not like they say anything new, they simply expand upon what we already know and believe. There have been very few new pronouncements by the Church, like the Immaculate Conception, and those things were hundreds of years in the making, that is, nothing seemingly new comes overnight. The Church is not given to startling new revelations.

Modern life presents new obstacles to living the faith, and new obstacles require advice to the faithful as to how to apply eternal truths to solve the problems that these new obstacles present. If nothing ever changed after the early Church I would think the Church were stagnant and not really appreciative of the changes happening all around it. It would become so out of touch that no one would look to it for guidance, because its head would be buried on the sand of bygone days. Truth doesn’t change, but how to apply it to new and challenging circumstances does change.

The faithful are constantly under attack. It is the role of the Church to present the Gospel in such a way that these attacks are nullified and unable to claim any of the faithful in their web. The Church must provide light into every nook and cranny of the modern world, Where there is light there can be no darkness. This is a staggering job, if you stop and think about it. No wonder so many books have been written and so many encyclicals and guidelines penned.

It’s not judaizing. What new laws have been written? What fences have we erected around already existing fences? What are these new requirements you speak of? Mainly what I see in the Catholic Church are the bare minimum of rules to consider yourself a Catholic in good standing. They even removed the rule about abstaining from meat on Friday. That wasn’t judaizing (the rule, I mean) it was to get Catholics who were doing absolutely nothing to commemorate the day on which Our Lord was crucified. It was to introduce a bare minimum of sacrifice, of penance, of self-denial into the lives of Catholics who were and are living as if the event of two thousand years ago never happened. We had a full parking lot at every Mass on Easter. Where are these people the rest of the year? The Church is right in making some rules, as any good mother would, in an attempt to get her children to become more responsible, develop some spiritual character and begin to follow the example of Jesus, molding themselves after His example.

 

[Brendan_64]

I can’t attend a Catholic Church until I’m probably 18 so for the time being I might have to attend this Methodist church right next to me.

Why can’t you attend until you are 18? Do your parents forbid it? If that is the case then yes, go ahead and attend the Methodist Church. Have you been baptised? If not then see if you can arrange that. The Catholic Church certainly does recognise baptism in a Methodist Church.

 

[steve_b]

ok now i see it but seems to be a bit different for what others say constitutes basis for the word catholic.It is listed as adjective.ans Ignatius used around 107AD I think

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

Kataholos Church = Catholic Church The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole.

 

[brb3]

Kataholos Church = Catholic Church The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole.

Steve b …

I think you’re on to something Momentous, …the Rosetta Stone for understanding Catholic Church lineage dates to earliest Apostolic era !!!

The Church to(for) the whole world !!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Actually the first name was “christian” ,then people of the Way, then catholic. Just when the adjective became a noun is another discussion.

The name various of us used at various times is mostly irrelevant. The fact remains that the Catholic Church, as it is now called, is the Church founded by Christ in the time of the Apostles. You can tell by simple history, by tracing the Popes back to Peter, the rock upon whom Christ built His Church: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm.

The Catholic Church, then, is the Church that Christ founded and contains the fullness of truth. Given that God does not want any men to believe falsehoods or to be ignorant of the truth He went to such lengths to reveal, it then follows that God does want all men to be Catholic.

 

[pocohombre]

Excuse me pocohombre, but I have seldom seen the 2x4 argument used in anything other than justification of ones own position. Which has made me smile much, as it would indicate you have ignored much of what I said. Protestantism is improper motivation and or theological thinking at it’s core. (Forget the focus on rats, sorry to set you off on that). I cannot see any justification for it.

So it’s ok for both of us to agree on something wrong with that church but not anyone elses ?

 

[steve_b]

Steve b …

I think you’re on to something Momentous, …the Rosetta Stone for understanding Catholic Church lineage dates to earliest Apostolic era !!!

The Church to(for) the whole world !!

I can’t take credit for anything.

All I can do is stand on the shoulders of giants of the faith and credit them.

such as

Ignatius, an apostolic Father of the Church, ordained by the apostles, became bishop of Antioch in 69 a.d. a disciple of St John the apostle, who asked the Church of Rome not to save him, was thrown to the lions in Rome in ~107 a.d. I think it safe to say, he didn’t invent the name Catholic Church. Even though it’s thought he’s the first to actually write the name Catholic Church, It’s a stretch at least in my mind to think that from 69 a.d. till 107 a.d., Ignatius never mentioned Catholic Church, or that Catholic Church was never used in conversation by anyone including the apostles Ignatius hung around with. And the name only first appeared when Ignatius wrote it in his letter to the Church @ Smyrna ~107 a.d.

Polycarp Bp of Smyrna, martyr, also a disciple of St John, also called the Church the Catholic Church.

Then one can count all the ECF’s who called the Church the Catholic Church, West and East, and defended the Church, by name, so it is clear, so no one gets confused. As Irenaeus said in defending the Catholic Church, in his day from her adversaries Chapter 2 v3 the image he uses is an image I associate with Satan in the garden, sifting Adam and Eve.

The name Catholic Church was the established name that everyone knew. Otherwise with all the mountain of information we have defending the Church and her name, going back to the beginning, where’s the corresponding pushback from some reputable ancient writer that the name is not the Catholic Church? If there was a complaint that the name was some novelty, where’s THAT pushback? The name Catholic Church, signifying the only Church of Jesus and the apostles and successors down to their day was so well established, it became an article of faith to believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in the Nicene Creed in 325 a.d. The same as it is today and forever.

Does God want everyone to be Catholic? Absolutely.

 

[brb3]

I can’t take credit for anything.

All I can do is stand on the shoulders of giants of the faith and credit them.

such as

Ignatius, an apostolic Father of the Church, ordained by the apostles, became bishop of Antioch in 69 a.d. a disciple of St John the apostle, who asked the Church of Rome not to save him, was thrown to the lions in Rome in ~107 a.d. I think it safe to say, he didn’t invent the name Catholic Church. Even though it’s thought he’s the first to actually write the name Catholic Church, It’s a stretch at least in my mind to think that from 69 a.d. till 107 a.d., Ignatius never mentioned Catholic Church, or that Catholic Church was never used in conversation by anyone including the apostles Ignatius hung around with. And the name only first appeared when Ignatius wrote it in his letter to the Church @ Smyrna ~107 a.d.

Polycarp Bp of Smyrna, martyr, also a disciple of St John, also called the Church the Catholic Church.

Then one can count all the ECF’s who called the Church the Catholic Church, West and East, and defended the Church, by name, so it is clear, so no one gets confused. As Irenaeus said in defending the Catholic Church, in his day from her adversaries Chapter 2 v3 the image he uses is an image I associate with Satan in the garden, sifting Adam and Eve.

The name Catholic Church was the established name that everyone knew. Otherwise with all the mountain of information we have defending the Church and her name, going back to the beginning, where’s the corresponding pushback from some reputable ancient writer that the name is not the Catholic Church? If there was a complaint that the name was some novelty, where’s THAT pushback? The name Catholic Church, signifying the only Church of Jesus and the apostles and successors down to their day was so well established, it became an article of faith to believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in the Nicene Creed in 325 a.d. The same as it is today and forever.

Does God want everyone to be Catholic? Absolutely.

Yes, the 107 AD …is irrefutable proof.

But, your Acts text…would take it back all the way to days of Luke, 60-70’s AD.
Thats the GoldStandard some Protestants seek…or so they say.

 

[StillCatholic]

I think that as Catholics that perhaps we have to be careful about insisting that all other Christians ought to be united in our Church in order to achieve salvation. Yes we are the only Church that can claim direct, unbroken lineage to the Church Christ set up on Earth, but can we honestly, hand-on-heart, claim 100% that all we are, all our beliefs, all our practices, etc. are of that Church, whereas those of our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ are not?

Rather than be focussing on this, we ought to be focussing of Christ’s Great Commandments, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "You shall love your neighbour as yourself., because as Christ told us, "On these two commandments depend all the law”

Do we keep these commandments ourselves? Do our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ keep to these commandments?

Hear! Hear! Let us love one another and so please Christ and BE Christ-like. I love being Catholic but since there are so many scriptures that say believing in Christ and being baptised and acting like Christ are all ways of being saved, then I have to believe that *not *being Catholic will not keep you from His eternal reward.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, the 107 AD …is irrefutable proof.

But, your Acts text…would take it back all the way to days of Luke, 60-70’s AD.
Thats the GoldStandard some Protestants seek…or so they say.

Here’s my take

As we know these early dates are somewhat fluid. That’s why I try to remember (not always successfully) to put (~) i.e. approx before a date just to be on the safe side. Ignatius was born ~50 a.d. The range of dates of his death go from ~97 to ~117. Either way, Ignatius was ordained by apostles, he was a disciple of St John, and was bishop of Antioch during apostolic times. I’m sure he taught what he heard from John. So since Ignatius was a disciple of John, John would have brought Ignatius up to speed on what all the apostles taught. Not to mention, if one reads Ignatius letter to the Romans, Ignatius knew what Clement of Rome was doing, and that he setteled sedition in the Church @ Corinth. These bishops weren’t disjointed individuals nor disjointed Churches. And knowing he was going to die, Ignatius asked for the Church of Rome “who holds the presidency” to watch out for the Church in Antioch after Ignatius was martyred.

Unless someone reputable can prove that Ignatius somehow went off the rails immediately, (I think such person would have shown up by now…right?) then I’m of the opinion, Ignatius wrote faithfully as he was taught. Therefore, he would have learned the name Catholic Church from the apostle or he wouldn’t have written Catholic Church. And it helps there is the connection

ἐκκλησίακαθ’ὅλης Acts 9:31 Kataholos Church = Catholic Church The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata,( καθ’ )which means according to, and holos,( ὅλης ) which means whole.

 

[steve_b]

Hear! Hear! Let us love one another and so please Christ and BE Christ-like. I love being Catholic but since there are so many scriptures that say believing in Christ and being baptised and acting like Christ are all ways of being saved, then I have to believe that not being Catholic will not keep you from His eternal reward.

Here’s something to think about.

Ignorance is the only reason one would have for being divided from the Catholic Church.

Our Lord explains by saying a prayer to His Father in front of His apostles regarding division and being completely united

Jn 17: 11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

Jn 17: 20 "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one**.** As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Do you see any wiggle room for division in these prayers of Jesus? NONE. Due to all the serial divisions created by Protestantism, the Catholic Church has pastorally addressed this issue of salvation and division from the Catholic Church with respect to one’s level of ignorance. Once a person knows their situation however, and is no longer ignorant of beng divided from the Catholic Church and it’s serious consequences if they remain in division, and they don’t enter the Catholic Church, ending their division, then they will not inherit heaven if they die in that sin.846

In scripture, here’s why division from the Church (there’s only one Church) is a mortal sin, and if one dies in that sin they won’t inherit heaven

Watch out for those who cause division, they don’t serve our Lord but their own selfish appetites [Rm 16:17-18]

The acts of the sinful nature are these, … division, dissent…I warn you as I have done before, those who live like this won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven. [Gal 5:19:17…]

therefore scripture warns, the CCC warns 846 , that division from the Catholic Church is condemned. Ignorance of one’s situation might be wiggle room, but as we know, ignorance isn’t always innocent, especially when people make little effort to know the truth. 1791

 

[JamesCaruso]

So it’s ok for both of us to agree on something wrong with that church but not anyone elses ?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Catholic Church, but I can’t speak for the people in it! As Mahatma Gandhi spoke, I’m paraphrasing, “I like your Jesus, but I don’t like your Christians.” Of course, that was an overstatement, but it contains more than enough truth that it cannot be dismissed.

The problem I have with focus on the sin of people within the Catholic Church is simple-- what good would a hospital be without sick people? The Church is a hospital for sick souls. It is important to check into the one true Church because it alone has the best remedies for whatever ails you. If you can’t get the number one, best treatment for your sick soul in the Catholic Church, check the sign outside again, because you must be in the wrong place. For spiritual health and development, there is no equal to the Catholic Church and the graces it alone so generously dispenses from God’s great bounty.

If you find Jesus before you find the Church, listen to Him-- He will lead you to the Catholic Church. If you find the Catholic Church before you find Jesus, listen to it-- it will lead you to Jesus. And if you want to come to Jesus but don’t know how, go first to Mary-- she will lead you both to her Son and to His Church.

 

[pocohombre]

So, you point to heretical doctrine that was condemned through the Scriptural method of ecumenical council, on what grounds?

 

[pocohombre]

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Catholic Church, but I can’t speak for the people in it! As Mahatma Gandhi spoke, I’m paraphrasing, “I like your Jesus, but I don’t like your Christians.” Of course, that was an overstatement, but it contains more than enough truth that it cannot be dismissed.

The problem I have with focus on the sin of people within the Catholic Church is simple-- what good would a hospital be without sick people? The Church is a hospital for sick souls. It is important to check into the one true Church because it alone has the best remedies for whatever ails you. If you can’t get the number one, best treatment for your sick soul in the Catholic Church, check the sign outside again, because you must be in the wrong place. For spiritual health and development, there is no equal to the Catholic Church and the graces it alone so generously dispenses from God’s great bounty.

If you find Jesus before you find the Church, listen to Him-- He will lead you to the Catholic Church. If you find the Catholic Church before you find Jesus, listen to it-- it will lead you to Jesus. And if you want to come to Jesus but don’t know how, go first to Mary-- she will lead you both to her Son and to His Church.

Thank you .The problem is when sick people make theology and decrees or decisions, as the thread properly criticizing a particular Protestant church. We tongue in cheek often say when bringing up possible flaws.challenges that believers /churches face that, “it doesn’t happen in our church, just the one down the street”. “I’m OK, You Are Not OK” was a popular book a grandma used to mention. Hence you statement that there is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church, and to finish the theme , would you say as there are “wrongs” in other churches ?

 

[pocohombre]

I could swear I’ve linked you to the Fathers. When Ignatius, Clement, and Ireneaus speak of unification in the Church, do they speak of a fluffy, ‘I believe in Jesus and that’s all’ kind of unification? Or are they condemning heretics and schismatics who still proclaim Christ? Then, after Ireneaus, read the rest, as I am attempting to do. See if there is any change in the definition of unity and obedience to bishops, and with determination of doctrine. Go ahead. See what you come up with.

Not sure Clement or Ignatius was speaking to heretics, but fellow Christians . Iraneus for sure titles it against heretics. Not sure that if someone says, “believe in Jesus that is all unification” means do what ever you please. Again, I wrote you can “see” this catholic universal church. An earlier post put the context of a protestant definition of church and even CC which says others are saved though not in CC . Now from there this post said “see” as not invisible but quite a visible church in deed and heirarchy ,with bishops,deacons etc etc. Nothing that Ignatius or Clement would object to directly. that is to obey, regard your bishop, and don’t get rid of them if they are holy and good and have done nothing wrong. Lets you call me dishonest, of course you can claim indirect obedience to Rome’s bishop, but it is not stated directly in either of these two authors, if I recall…Again Clement condemned the Corinthians because the bishops were good. The deduction could be made that if they were bad,with just cause ,you could replace them,not follow them for sure. Could be wrong just a quick thought.

 

[pocohombre]

I believe the essentials still are simple.

If you’re talking about encyclicals and the like, they are often more wordy than I need, but if I sit down and read one, it makes perfect sense. It’s not like they say anything new, they simply expand upon what we already know and believe. There have been very few new pronouncements by the Church, like the Immaculate Conception, and those things were hundreds of years in the making, that is, nothing seemingly new comes overnight. The Church is not given to startling new revelations.

Modern life presents new obstacles to living the faith, and new obstacles require advice to the faithful as to how to apply eternal truths to solve the problems that these new obstacles present. If nothing ever changed after the early Church I would think the Church were stagnant and not really appreciative of the changes happening all around it. It would become so out of touch that no one would look to it for guidance, because its head would be buried on the sand of bygone days. Truth doesn’t change, but how to apply it to new and challenging circumstances does change.

The faithful are constantly under attack. It is the role of the Church to present the Gospel in such a way that these attacks are nullified and unable to claim any of the faithful in their web. The Church must provide light into every nook and cranny of the modern world, Where there is light there can be no darkness. This is a staggering job, if you stop and think about it. No wonder so many books have been written and so many encyclicals and guidelines penned.

It’s not judaizing. What new laws have been written? What fences have we erected around already existing fences? What are these new requirements you speak of? Mainly what I see in the Catholic Church are the bare minimum of rules to consider yourself a Catholic in good standing. They even removed the rule about abstaining from meat on Friday. That wasn’t judaizing (the rule, I mean) it was to get Catholics who were doing absolutely nothing to commemorate the day on which Our Lord was crucified. It was to introduce a bare minimum of sacrifice, of penance, of self-denial into the lives of Catholics who were and are living as if the event of two thousand years ago never happened. We had a full parking lot at every Mass on Easter. Where are these people the rest of the year? The Church is right in making some rules, as any good mother would, in an attempt to get her children to become more responsible, develop some spiritual character and begin to follow the example of Jesus, molding themselves after His example.

Yes times change and it is a challenge.But I still say the more things change the more they stay the same. So ,the first church had it just as tough and I would not rationalize "change’ ,or at least not all change… I have already mentioned some of the things that are done today that were not done with apostles.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, the 107 AD …is irrefutable proof.

 

[pocohombre]

Hear! Hear! Let us love one another and so please Christ and BE Christ-like. I love being Catholic but since there are so many scriptures that say believing in Christ and being baptised and acting like Christ are all ways of being saved, then I have to believe that *not *being Catholic will not keep you from His eternal reward.

Whew. Don’t rain on their parade. Well, they could say, “rejoice with those who rejoice”. But amen to your sentiment and sensitivity ,for “Houston we got a problem” and not all are rejoicing.