Does it matter what denomination you are a part of?

[guanophore]

I have never claimed to be the disciple that stood at the cross 2000 years ago. I do not follow your thoughts. Quite willing to forget the mumbo jumbo!

One of the reasons that disciple is not named is because He stands in for all of us. Jesus gave His mother to the Church. This is why we see her in the book of Revelation.

"Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron…17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus.

 

[steve-b]

guanophore:

Wannano:

Yes, and he stops about a half inch short of proclaiming that non-Catholics are all going to hell.

Actually I was just reading a thread where he had considerably less than a half inch, more like a couple millimeters.

But, while I don’t subscribe to his conclusions (neither does the Catholic Church, for that matter), the principle is valid. Divisions matter, and are contrary to Jesus will for His Church. We need to all work to resolve them, and come into the unity He desires. That begins by understanding our differences, and CAF is a great place to do that.

Isn’t it divisive for a Catholic to come to a different conclusion and expound it when it differs from the Church?

What’s talked about is

διχοστασίαι = division, schism, dissension, sedition, standing apart. Forming pointless (groundless) factions and sects. The consequence is one in that sin and dies in it won’t inherit heaven. Not my words that’s from Paul

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

guanophore:

Wannano:

Yes, and he stops about a half inch short of proclaiming that non-Catholics are all going to hell.

Actually I was just reading a thread where he had considerably less than a half inch, more like a couple millimeters.

But, while I don’t subscribe to his conclusions (neither does the Catholic Church, for that matter), the principle is valid. Divisions matter, and are contrary to Jesus will for His Church. We need to all work to resolve them, and come into the unity He desires. That begins by understanding our differences, and CAF is a great place to do that.

Isn’t it divisive for a Catholic to come to a different conclusion and expound it when it differs from the Church?

What’s talked about is

διχοστασίαι = division, schism, dissension, sedition, standing apart. Forming pointless (groundless) factions and sects. The consequence is one in that sin and dies in it won’t inherit heaven. Not my words that’s from Paul

Steve, can you not see that your ardent efforts to identify those transgressors places yourself in the same circle as those you are so concerned about?

 

[guanophore]

Steve, can you not see that your ardent efforts to identify those transgressors places yourself in the same circle as those you are so concerned about?

I don’t think there is any ardent desire to identify such persons. On the contrary, they show up here all the time. Steve is ardent about relating the Church teaching on these matters. This thread is a good example of how this topic occurs here at CAF, and they are not uncommon here.

When I first saw this thread, my first thought was the sin of indifferentism.

Oddly some Reformed Christians share this thought quite ardently - that Jesus is the ONLY name under heaven by which we may be saved. They take it further than Catholics, though, because we believe in invincible ignorance.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Steve, can you not see that your ardent efforts to identify those transgressors places yourself in the same circle as those you are so concerned about?

I don’t think there is any ardent desire to identify such persons. On the contrary, they show up here all the time. Steve is ardent about relating the Church teaching on these matters. This thread is a good example of how this topic occurs here at CAF, and they are not uncommon here.

When I first saw this thread, my first thought was the sin of indifferentism.

Oddly some Reformed Christians share this thought quite ardently - that Jesus is the ONLY name under heaven by which we may be saved. They take it further than Catholics, though, because we believe in invincible ignorance.

We had a Prime Minister in Canada who had some disfigurement on his face that caused him to talk out of one side of his mouth with his lips curved to one side. When some member of his Opposition cast a slur about his face and how he talked, the Prime Minister responded by saying " well, at least I do not talk out of both sides of my mouth and the same time!"

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Wannano:

guanophore:

Wannano:

Yes, and he stops about a half inch short of proclaiming that non-Catholics are all going to hell.

Actually I was just reading a thread where he had considerably less than a half inch, more like a couple millimeters.

But, while I don’t subscribe to his conclusions (neither does the Catholic Church, for that matter), the principle is valid. Divisions matter, and are contrary to Jesus will for His Church. We need to all work to resolve them, and come into the unity He desires. That begins by understanding our differences, and CAF is a great place to do that.

Isn’t it divisive for a Catholic to come to a different conclusion and expound it when it differs from the Church?

What’s talked about is

διχοστασίαι = division, schism, dissension, sedition, standing apart. Forming pointless (groundless) factions and sects. The consequence is one in that sin and dies in it won’t inherit heaven. Not my words that’s from Paul

Steve, can you not see that your ardent efforts to identify those transgressors places yourself in the same circle as those you are so concerned about?

Do you not see that I select who I choose to be directed by?

I have shown multiple times, in “quotes”, who ultimately controls EVERYTHING. That doesn’t seem to be getting through to you.

 

[MichaelP3]

I have shown multiple times, in “quotes”, who ultimately controls EVERYTHING. That doesn’t seem to be getting through to you.

GOD?

123456789

 

[steve-b]

invincible

guanophore:

Wannano:

Steve, can you not see that your ardent efforts to identify those transgressors places yourself in the same circle as those you are so concerned about?

I don’t think there is any ardent desire to identify such persons. On the contrary, they show up here all the time. Steve is ardent about relating the Church teaching on these matters. This thread is a good example of how this topic occurs here at CAF, and they are not uncommon here.

When I first saw this thread, my first thought was the sin of indifferentism.

Oddly some Reformed Christians share this thought quite ardently - that Jesus is the ONLY name under heaven by which we may be saved. They take it further than Catholics, though, because we believe in invincible ignorance.

We had a Prime Minister in Canada who had some disfigurement on his face that caused him to talk out of one side of his mouth with his lips curved to one side. When some member of his Opposition cast a slur about his face and how he talked, the Prime Minister responded by saying " well, at least I do not talk out of both sides of my mouth and the same time!"

Re: vincible vs invincible ignorance, may I suggest an analysis describing the 2, Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Answers

warnings that have been give since the beginning of time, AND ignored, disregarded, or objected to, by society at large, is why there is by the mercy of God, at judgement of each individual at death, depending on the severity of sin of those folks, either a purification mode happens for those who don’t die in mortal sin, or a permanent separation of those folks in mortal sin . Just like scripture and tradition teaches.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I have shown multiple times, in “quotes”, who ultimately controls EVERYTHING. That doesn’t seem to be getting through to you.

GOD?

123456789

Yes as I’ve shown by quoting many times on these forums, all the inspiration given via scripture, by the HS, ultimately comes from Jesus in His own words John 16:12-15 RSVCE - “I have yet many things to say to - Bible Gateway

 

[MichaelP3]

all the inspiration given via scripture, by the HS, ultimately comes from Jesus

On that we agree

 

[Wannano]

guanophore:

Wannano:

Steve, can you not see that your ardent efforts to identify those transgressors places yourself in the same circle as those you are so concerned about?

I don’t think there is any ardent desire to identify such persons. On the contrary, they show up here all the time. Steve is ardent about relating the Church teaching on these matters. This thread is a good example of how this topic occurs here at CAF, and they are not uncommon here.

When I first saw this thread, my first thought was the sin of indifferentism.

Oddly some Reformed Christians share this thought quite ardently - that Jesus is the ONLY name under heaven by which we may be saved. They take it further than Catholics, though, because we believe in invincible ignorance.

We had a Prime Minister in Canada who had some disfigurement on his face that caused him to talk out of one side of his mouth with his lips curved to one side. When some member of his Opposition cast a slur about his face and how he talked, the Prime Minister responded by saying " well, at least I do not talk out of both sides of my mouth and the same time!"

Steve, I am quite confused…did you take my paragraph above to mean I was referring to you?
The last paragraph.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

all the inspiration given via scripture, by the HS, ultimately comes from Jesus

On that we agree

then you know who is condemning division from His Church.

 

[MichaelP3]

But as stated so many times before, that statement has so many assumptions attached to it.

 

[lanman87]

Once again all I am arguing is interpretation here, nothing else. Where do we draw the DATE line on the correct interpretation of scripture? The reason I ask is because it seems that you are willing to stand with the fathers when they speak about scriptures being an umpire but you don’t seem to want to stand with them when they sound awfully Catholic.

I didn’t get on the internet much this weekend and instead spent time doing chores, relaxing with my family and having some down time. I did have some time to think about this conversation. I also spent some time reading some church history.

To me the bottom line is the church does have authority, as long as it keeps the Gospel teachings of the apostles.

The reason I think the Catholic church teaches things that weren’t taught by the apostles is because you can read history and find out when/where/why those things started to be taught and how they developed the teachings.

The question about all doctrines is “Was the doctrines something taught by Christ and the Apostles or something developed by Canon Lawyers and Theologians?”

Take for instance, the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which I read about this past weekend). No such thing had ever been thought about before the year circa 1300. Before 1300 the prevailing belief (by canon lawyers) was that in matters of faith a general council was greater than a pope. They did not teach the pope was infallible. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility came about because Franciscans had received Papal sanction that the “Franciscan way of life did indeed correspond to the way of perfection the Christ had taught to the apostles”. Peter Olivi, a leading Franciscan, was the first to developed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility because he feared a future pope would overturn the privileges given to the Franciscans by the Pope. When this actually happened and Pope John XXII later revoked the privileges granted to Franscisans the Franciscan order "defended the doctrine of evangelical poverty and denounced John XXII as a heretic for attacking the doctrine and, for the first time, said the Pope (in this case the earlier Pope Nicholas III) was infallible on matters of faith and morals when he used the “Keys” to define faith and morals.

So we see that the entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility was developed by Franciscans wanting to keep Papal support of their doctrine. We can then move on in the future and see the doctrine gain support as the various councils and popes sparred over authority. In the end, It took a political crisis of the Catholic church losing support and power for the climate to be ripe for Papal Infallibility to be declared dogma at Vatican I.

No matter how you slice it. Papal infallibility (as an example) was not part of the teachings (either written or oral) of Christ and the Apostles.

 

[steve-b]

But as stated so many times before, that statement has so many assumptions attached to it.

and there are many “assumptions” that people have that are wrong.

 

[steve-b]

MT1926:

Once again all I am arguing is interpretation here, nothing else. Where do we draw the DATE line on the correct interpretation of scripture? The reason I ask is because it seems that you are willing to stand with the fathers when they speak about scriptures being an umpire but you don’t seem to want to stand with them when they sound awfully Catholic.

I didn’t get on the internet much this weekend and instead spent time doing chores, relaxing with my family and having some down time. I did have some time to think about this conversation. I also spent some time reading some church history.

To me the bottom line is the church does have authority, as long as it keeps the Gospel teachings of the apostles.

The reason I think the Catholic church teaches things that weren’t taught by the apostles is because you can read history and find out when/where/why those things started to be taught and how they developed the teachings.

The question about all doctrines is “Was the doctrines something taught by Christ and the Apostles or something developed by Canon Lawyers and Theologians?”

Take for instance, the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which I read about this past weekend). No such thing had ever been thought about before the year circa 1300. Before 1300 the prevailing belief (by canon lawyers) was that in matters of faith a general council was greater than a pope. They did not teach the pope was infallible. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility came about because Franciscans had received Papal sanction that the “Franciscan way of life did indeed correspond to the way of perfection the Christ had taught to the apostles”. Peter Olivi, a leading Franciscan, was the first to developed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility because he feared a future pope would overturn the privileges given to the Franciscans by the Pope. When this actually happened and Pope John XXII later revoked the privileges granted to Franscisans the Franciscan order "defended the doctrine of evangelical poverty and denounced John XXII as a heretic for attacking the doctrine and, for the first time, said the Pope (in this case the earlier Pope Nicholas III) was infallible on matters of faith and morals when he used the “Keys” to define faith and morals.

So we see that the entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility was developed by Franciscans wanting to keep Papal support of their doctrine. We can then move on in the future and see the doctrine gain support as the various councils and popes sparred over authority. In the end, It took a political crisis of the Catholic church losing support and power for the climate to be ripe for Papal Infallibility to be declared dogma at Vatican I.

No matter how you slice it. Papal infallibility (as an example) was not part of the teachings (either written or oral) of Christ and the Apostles.

Here’s an interesting article Re: infallible vs inerrant The Bible Is Not Infallible | Catholic Answers

 

[lanman87]

Here’s an interesting article Re: infallible vs inerrant The Bible Is Not Infallible | Catholic Answers

I’m aware of the different definitions, thank you though.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Here’s an interesting article Re: infallible vs inerrant The Bible Is Not Infallible | Catholic Answers

I’m aware of the different definitions, thank you though.

then, have you in extension, not seen explanations to your question you asked

" No matter how you slice it. Papal infallibility (as an example) was not part of the teachings (either written or oral) of Christ and the Apostles."

If you’d like to see the answer, as to why Jesus protects His Church from teaching error in doctrine, just ask.

 

[lanman87]

If you’d like to see the answer, as to why Jesus protects His Church from teaching error in doctrine, just ask.

I know the arguments. The doctrine that Jesus has a special Charism for the Magesterium of the church was also a later development. This is one of the most dangerous doctrines the Catholic church developed. The reason being that truth is no longer what was taught by Christ and the Apostles and we must hold to that truth. But truth became, in effect, whatever we (the Pope and bishops) say it is.

 

[Vico]

“We all have Jesus and our own opinions so it doesn’t matter if we are in different types of denominations right? I mean Jesus wouldn’t care if you are Baptist, catholic, or any type of protestant as long as we have Jesus in our heart”

-protestants

In Christianity there is the Catholic Church, particular churches, and ecclesial communities. Only the Catholic Church has the full identity of the Church of Christ.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html