Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?

[MT1926]

The line isn’t a point in time.

Maybe I’m not understanding what you are trying to say but you just created a circular argument here.

Earlier when I asked how you know that your interpretation was what the Apostles meant you said we need to use BOTH the scriptures and history attest to what the Apostles taught. So I asked for who draws the date line on history and you answer it’s based on what the Apostles handed down.

Do you see what you are saying? How can you base the history on what the Apostles taught when you already claimed that you use History to interpret what the Apostles meant? You gotta pick one if you present it both ways then it’s a circular argument.

(The infancy Gospel of James and Infancy Gospel Thomas come to mind).

These would be what we call small t traditions we are free to take them or leave them.

Everywhere it says to hold fast to the teachings of the Apostles.

Are you serious? It sure seems like you are just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

I asked where is it taught in scripture that scriptural interpretation is done in community?

Do you honestly believe that St. Paul saying hold fast to the teaching of the Apostles equates to we interpret what the Apostles meant in community?

How do you hold fast to something that you are figuring out in community? Shouldn’t you know it already if it was taught to you?

The “we” is talking about the apostles themselves

You are reading way to much into this verse. Sure agreed we need to hold them accountable but he also tells us by what standard we hold them accountable. He doesn’t say you hold the leadership accountable based on what the community as a whole interprets scripture to mean or what the believe he meant when he wrote it. He says to hold them accountable based on what was preached to them. This means the interpretation of scripture that was handed on to them. As I already stated if you can’t show you have a line of hand offs from the Apostles then you have no way of knowing what was preached in the first place. If you can’t show your interpretation was the Apostles interpretation then how do you know you aren’t the one preaching another gospel?

Isn’t that exactly what the church councils did.

No you are comparing apples and oranges. The Church councils were the ones who were handed on the authority, from my example they would be all teachers coming to a decision not the lay students. I see nothing wrong with this.

The thrust of the New Testament writings is that we get to know Jesus by Grace through Faith.

I agree with everything you say here, but we are just going in circles and both know the point I was getting at was who gets to choose how we abide in Christ? Us or Him?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

Sure agreed we need to hold them accountable but he also tells us by what standard we hold them accountable.

I agree with this. We hold them accountable to maintain the gospel as preached by the Apostles. To not add or remove teachings from what the Apostles taught as revealed by Christ. How does the Catholic church hold the magesterium accountable for teaching the gospel as delivered by the Apostles?

I agree with everything you say here, but we are just going in circles and both know the point I was getting at was who gets to choose how we abide in Christ? Us or Him?

God chooses who abides in Him and makes it clear to the person who abides in Him. Jesus said in John 10:4 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,

God understands our hearts and our faith He knows who is His own and His own know they are His.

 

[lanman87]

As I already stated if you can’t show you have a line of hand offs from the Apostles then you have no way of knowing what was preached in the first place. If you can’t show your interpretation was the Apostles interpretation then how do you know you aren’t the one preaching another gospel?

We know what was preached because it was also written down for every generation to understand. Anyone can read the Bible and come to faith in Christ. They may not understand theology or the trinity or anything other than Jesus loves them and forgives their sins and offers them eternal life but God still offers them salvation and forgiveness and redemption.

 

[MT1926]

How does the Catholic church hold the magesterium accountable for teaching the gospel as delivered by the Apostles?

I don’t understand your question? Why would I be so arrogant as to believe for a minute that 48 year old me knows how the Apostles meant for their words to be interpreted 2000 years ago better than a 2000 year old Church with some of the greatest minds to of ever walked the earth. Sorry I just can’t fathom it. I just can’t see how I can truly say I have faith in Christ, well accept for that part that…He would found a Church and be with that Church til the end of the age. No that part sounds to far fetched.

Now don’t get me wrong if the Pope started preaching a Quarternity, basically something that contradicts a dogma already taught then we got a problem. But just because it took a few hundred years to write something down doesn’t bother me. Heck I wasn’t there during those 200 years of contemplation, I don’t know nor am I so arrogant to proclaim what the early Christians did and didn’t believe. Think about it, if the Church wrote about something they were still figuring out then changed it to make it clearer you would be the first to point that out right?

This is all part of the “faith” issue. If you have faith in Christ then you have to have faith in His Church, which includes the magisterium.

Not my call I wasn’t there 2000 years ago but the Church was, who am I to call her a liar?

We know what was preached because it was also written down for every generation to understand. Anyone can read the Bible and come to faith in Christ. They may not understand theology or the trinity or anything other than Jesus loves them and forgives their sins and offers them eternal life but God still offers them salvation and forgiveness and redemption.

I think this sums up perfectly what is wrong with Christianity in this day and age. Basically, whatever is good enough for me is good enough. God understands this is good enough for me and He will give me salvation whether I do what He asks or not. Yep that’s how it works in this world also right. All we need is the basics to get ahead and be secure. Working hard is overrated.

Not saying this is you, but it’s laziness. In my opinion Christians have dumbed down the gospel message so like you say so everyone can understand. St. Peter under the guidance of the Holy Spirit says Paul’s writings are hard to understand but you claim nope the Holy Spirit got that one wrong we can all understand. Sure we might not get it all but we will get enough easily without twisting it.

Do you honestly contemplate what you were taught. Come on think about it. We aren’t anywhere close to being apologists, but we go at it like 2 hours a day. Do you honestly believe anyone can pick up the Bible and keep up with where we are in our understanding let alone theologians who dedicate their life to understanding the scriptures?

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

The Catholic Church was sitting there with Jesus at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church wrote and canonized the NT. It is the pillar and Bulwark of truth.

Every author of scripture was already in the Church they were writing to and for. Ergo they were ALL Catholics in the Catholic Church.

Wannano:

How then can the Church proclaim that evil Popes and Priests are not the Church, if individuals who wrote the Bible are the Church?

Was Judas part of the Church? Yes. Did he write scripture? No. Did evil priests or popes write scripture ? No

Wannano:

Where was it said that evil Popes, Bishops an Priests are not the Church? Just about everywhere, here at CAF for sure. It is stressed that they are not the Church only rotten apples in the Church.

I personally don’t recall that view said in a conversation I was in.

Wannano:

Above you are agreeing with my point that the writers of Scripture are individuals within the Church as well, not The Church. That is my point, The Church did not write the NT, individuals within the Church wrote it.

There are rotten apples “in” the Church. There is no disagreement there. They can have their opinions as well, but when they are in error, they do NOT speak for the Church. Do you have an example where a doctrine was defined by the Church then it was reversed later?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I don’t subscribe to Indifferentism or latitudinarianism .

So are you saying that there aren’t any members of those churches who have come been moved from death to life by the indwelling Holy Spirit, been adopted as sons and daughters of Christ, been made new Creations in Christ, and live a life of faith and service to God, serve His People, and share His Gospel with the world by acts of love and service?

What about the Orthodox church, would you strike them out as well?

Re: definitions,

The Church officially in her documents, calls

1. the 1st group you mention, “ecclesial communities”. They have not maintained apostolic succession
2. the Orthodox are churches because they maintained apostolic succession

As to your other question,

there is no once saved always saved.

 

[Vico]

…
If the Catholic Church was there surely Peter would have known he was the Pope and that should have given him the courage to die with the Saviour. …

Odd statement. The Church is assured to preserve the truth by the Holy Spirit, but it is composed of many sinners. Because we have free will we have the ability to sin and Peter knew that he sinned. Jesus asked Peter to repeat three times that he loved him, the number of times that Peter denied him.

John 21

15 When therefore they had dined, 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: Feed my lambs.16 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: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Mark 2

17Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.

Matthew 16

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[steve-b]

The Roman Catholic church didn’t exist at the Last Supper.

I would just add to what I previously said,

Peter was at the Last Supper. Where Peter is there is the Church. Peter’s last see was Rome.

It’s why when Bp Ignatius of Antioch, direct disciple of John the apostle, wrote 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations, in his letter to Rome, he identifies the Church of Rome in his opening statement, as the Church that holds the presidency .

It’s also why Bp Irenaeus, disciple of Bp Polycarp, also a direct disciple of John, wrote in his work “Against Heresies” the following about the Church of Rome

AND

Where apostolic succession is defended as well as successor to Peter is from the line of bishops of Rome.

read paragraphs 1-3

 

[Wannano]

Sorry Steve, you are missing my point by looking way to deep. But really, it doesn’t matter.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

…
If the Catholic Church was there surely Peter would have known he was the Pope and that should have given him the courage to die with the Saviour. …

Odd statement. The Church is assured to preserve the truth by the Holy Spirit, but it is composed of many sinners. Because we have free will we have the ability to sin and Peter knew that he sinned. Jesus asked Peter to repeat three times that he loved him, the number of times that Peter denied him.

John 21

15 When therefore they had dined, 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: Feed my lambs.16 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: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Mark 2

17Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.

Matthew 16

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can understand why it appears odd and I understand and appreciate your reasonings. I was making the point that the Catholic Church was not at the Last Supper, not as the living organism that exists today.

Catholics lose credibility by trying to backdate the actual origins of the Church.

 

[MT1926]

I was making the point that the Catholic Church was not at the Last Supper, not as the living organism that exists today.

I see where you are coming with this statement and agree the Catholic Church is a living organism, so we can’t say what exists today is what we see at the last supper. However Jesus told us this in

Matthew 13 31 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Jesus is using this parable of the Mustard Seed to illustrate the contrast in size between the seed and the mature shrub. Jesus likewise sowed the kingdom using a small band of disciples, expecting it to grow and mature into a worldwide Church.

All of the parables in Matthew 13 speak of the hidden mysteries of God’s kingdom present in the Church.

Where I am going with this is I understand what @steve-b is trying to point to. He is pointing that the Catholic Church was present in the Apostles at the last supper in seed form. Sure I agree it is not what we see today, which makes sense, because Jesus hadn’t yet planted it. It needed time to grow and mature. Which is why what is being inferred in this thread makes no sense… How can we believe the Apostles wrote down everything we need to know, especially in a way for all to understand? Are we to believe all of Christ’s knowledge is contained in one book? How can we believe and understand without this living organism, still being alive in this very day, that we can know what they meant in their writings? Finally, do we believe Jesus planned on the tree to stop maturing with the death of the last Apostle? Sure I agree we shouldn’t go adding things that are contrary to the Gospels. But just because it’s not explicitly stated isn’t evidence that it is contrary to the Gospel. We can and should grow in their understanding.

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

How can we believe the Apostles wrote down everything we need to know, especially in a way for all to understand? Are we to believe all of Christ’s knowledge is contained in one book? How can we believe and understand without this living organism, still being alive in this very day, that we can know what they meant in their writings? Finally, do we believe Jesus planned on the tree to stop maturing with the death of the last Apostle? Sure I agree we shouldn’t go adding things that are contrary to the Gospels. But just because it’s not explicitly stated isn’t evidence that it is contrary to the Gospel. We can and should grow in their understanding.

To your point,

John makes the point you bring up. John 21:24-25 RSVCE - This is the disciple who is bearing - Bible Gateway

 

[steve-b]

I was making the point that the Catholic Church was not at the Last Supper, not as the living organism that exists today.

Catholics lose credibility by trying to backdate the actual origins of the Church.

Taking this in steps

In the upper room, an argument happened with the apostles over who is the greatest among THEM. [Lk 22:24-32 ]

Jesus said (referring to Peter)
ἡγούμενος = hégeomai

1. to lead … to go before to be a leader to rule, command to have authority over a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches the leader in speech, chief, spokesmana)to rule, govern
2. note: part of the definition, that person who leads deserves cooperation by those who are led

So

One could ask, what part of what Jesus said earlier to Peter at Caeserea Philippi, with all the apostles in ear shot, didn’t resonate with the other apostles?

1. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock (Peter)
2. Jesus said He will build His Church on Peter
3. Jesus will give Peter the keys to Our Lord’s kingdom,
4. and not even the gates of Hell will prevail against this Church He builds on Peter

This is before the Upper Room and the Last Supper took place.

Did the Last supper change ANYTHING in Jesus plan? No
Did the argument the apostles had over who is greatest among THEM change this plan of Jesus? No
Did everything go as planned from beginning to end? absolutely

The Catholic Church (call it a seed) was there at the Last Supper.

I will just suggest to you a seed has everything necessary to produce the finished product and it will grow true to form that is in the code of that seed…

2000 years later, we see

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Vico]

…

I can understand why it appears odd and I understand and appreciate your reasonings. I was making the point that the Catholic Church was not at the Last Supper, not as the living organism that exists today.

Catholics lose credibility by trying to backdate the actual origins of the Church.

Perhaps it is because of a different definition of the Church of Christ that non-Catholics may have? The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and there is only one Church of Christ.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia , from the Greek ek-ka-lein , to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake , from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”

 

[steve-b]

Sorry Steve, you are missing my point by looking way to deep. But really, it doesn’t matter.

wait a minute. You never said you wanted shallow answers

 

[lanman87]

Re: definitions,

The Church officially in her documents, calls

1. the 1st group you mention, “ecclesial communities”. They have not maintained apostolic succession
2. the Orthodox are churches because they maintained apostolic succession

As to your other question,

there is no once saved always saved.

You didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask for the difference of a church and “ecclesial community”. I didn’t mention apostolic succession or lack thereof and I have know idea why you mentioned ones saved always saved. I am talking individuals and their relationship and status with Christ. Let me ask another way.

So are you saying that there aren’t any members of those that call themselves (churches that I identified in a previous post), who have come been moved from death to life by the indwelling Holy Spirit, been adopted as sons and daughters of Christ, been made new Creations in Christ, and live a life of faith and service to God, serve His People, and share His Gospel with the world by acts of love and service and maintain their trust and belief in Christ till the end?

What about the Orthodox church are there members who are in their church who are also “in Christ and Christ in them” and will be saved in the end?

 

[steve-b]

So are you saying that there aren’t any members of those that call themselves (churches that I identified in a previous post), who have come been moved from death to life by the indwelling Holy Spirit, been adopted as sons and daughters of Christ, been made new Creations in Christ, and live a life of faith and service to God, serve His People, and share His Gospel with the world by acts of love and service and maintain their trust and belief in Christ till the end?

What about the Orthodox church are there members who are in their church who are also “in Christ and Christ in them” and will be saved in the end?

The first group you mentioned are officially ecclesial communities, vs Orthodox who are churches.

your question requires an authoritative answer properly referenced.

here is paragraph 14 from Lumen Gentium of Vat II . An ecumenical council

note: it starts out by addressing Catholics then switches to whosoever

"14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12)* All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)…"

As an aside, Re: Charity
From part of St Thomas Aquinas ( b 1224, d 1274), “Summa” Q: 39 and reply to objection 3, schism is against charity. Scroll to the specific reply. The entire piece is very informative

 

[lanman87]

here is paragraph 14 from Lumen Gentium of Vat II . An ecumenical council

Okay great. What does it mean in plain English and how does it answer my question?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

here is paragraph 14 from Lumen Gentium of Vat II . An ecumenical council

Okay great. What does it mean in plain English and how does it answer my question?

I think I’ve given the answer already

BUT

to be sure, see if I have your question right.

You’re asking, that no matter one’s affiliation / denomination , they can be in Christ, and Christ in them, and will be saved in the end

Is that pretty much it?

 

[lanman87]

So are you saying that there aren’t any members of those that call themselves (churches that I identified in a previous post), who have come been moved from death to life by the indwelling Holy Spirit, been adopted as sons and daughters of Christ, been made new Creations in Christ, and live a life of faith and service to God, serve His People, and share His Gospel with the world by acts of love and service and maintain their trust and belief in Christ till the end?

Let me ask a different way. If someone is a Baptist or Methodist (non Catholic who never receives the Mass or other sacraments as defined by the Catholic church) , but they have faith/Trust in Christ, live a life of repentance of sin, support their church community, help the poor and needy, have an attitude of love toward God and their fellow man, and persevere in faith until the end…

Are they indwelled by the Holy Spirit?
Are they adopted Children of God?
Have they been made new Creations in Christ?
Are they part of the body of Christ?
Will they be saved in the end?