If you believe that the CC is...?

[Peter_J]

I find this to be common here; the willingness to argue with Protestants but the unwillingness to discuss with Orthodox… why is that?

I’m not sure. Personally I mostly get into discussions with Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans … not much with the non-catholic protestants (I don’t mean that phrase to be pejorative,mind you). I guess I’m not the best person to answer your question.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I find this to be common here; the willingness to argue with Protestants but the unwillingness to discuss with Orthodox… why is that?

On a different note, I find it a bit hollow/sometimes duplicitous when Protestants jump into the Orthodox ship when they have run out of answers and have nothing reasonable to say…

What’s the point of bringing up something to your defense that you are not?

 

[Per_Crucem]

On a different note, I find it a bit hollow/sometimes duplicitous when Protestants jump into the Orthodox ship when they have run out of answers and have nothing reasonable to say…

What’s the point of bringing up something to your defense that you are not?

The same as you bringing anabaptists into the equation

 

[joe371]

There actually is no “Roman Church”. Everyone in communion with Rome are the Roman Communion, which we also call “the Catholic Chruch”. (Edit: Sometimes people use “Roman Church” to mean the Latin Church, but that’s not correct terminology either.)

 

[dronald]

Read up on forum guidelines:

Orthodox/Catholic Threads

A reminder on inter-faith dialogue

I am more than willing to argue with them, but our arguments are a tad different than with Protestants. Plus, unless we are deep into history (Our issues have accumulated over a thousand years…) most of the arguments are superficial. Plus they don’t have such attractive bullseye targets like the solas

I think those rules could easily be applied to Protestants as well. I think they are actually.

 

[Peter_J]

On a different note, I find it a bit hollow/sometimes duplicitous when Protestants jump into the Orthodox ship when they have run out of answers and have nothing reasonable to say…

What’s the point of bringing up something to your defense that you are not?

Just so. Basically, either you’re Orthodox or you’re not. (I’m kind of appropriating something the Orthodox say, but I don’t think they’ll mind. )

 

[cath4alltime]

If the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.,then why would anyone not want to belong to this church?

Stipulation: If you do not believe that Jesus established the Catholic Church, and can prove it (e.g. provide the name of the person who founded the Catholic Church and when) then I would certainly understand. Just looking for specific reasons (in light of the knowledge that the Catholic Church was founded by God).

I believe Christ did not found any particular Church and in the early years there was no Catholic Church but one unified Church. It was after the split with the Universal Church that it bcame the Catholic Church.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I believe Christ did not found any particular Church and in the early years there was no Catholic Church but one unified Church. It was after the split with the Universal Church that it bcame the Catholic Church.

You need to be specific. When did this true church cease to exist?

 

[cath4alltime]

It split and went mostly to the East

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

It split and went mostly to the East

When, where and how do you know this?

 

[adf417]

It split and went mostly to the East

How does something split and still remain one? And can you describe in physical terms of the remainder of that which did not go East did your sect come?

Peace!!!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

“since the question is directed to those who believe that “the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.” which Orthodox obviously don’t believe.”

I missed the “roman” part in your original quote. That being said, I think its a just a matter of fact that Ignatius did not belong to the roman communion, but if you want to argue for that, be my guest.

“I think its a just a matter of fact that Ignatius did not belong to the roman communion” is a puzzling statement to me, given that St. Ignatius wrote a letter to the Church in Rome, which opens,

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Are you saying that St. Ignatius was not in communion with the Church in Rome? Surely you must have meant something different.*

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

“I think its a just a matter of fact that Ignatius did not belong to the roman communion” is a puzzling statement to me, given that St. Ignatius wrote a letter to the Church in Rome, which opens,

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm*

Are you saying that St. Ignatius was not in communion with the Church in Rome? Surely you must have meant something different.

I never said he was not in communion with Rome, obviously he was or he would not have written words of praise to the Roman church. My point is that he was not a Roman Catholic, he was a Syrian Catholic, an Antiochian Catholic.

 

[joe371]

I believe Christ did not found any particular Church and in the early years there was no Catholic Church but one unified Church. It was after the split with the Universal Church that it bcame the Catholic Church.

Confused. Jesus did not found a church, and yet he said: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”.

It sounds like you are saying that Jesus’ established church was the one unified church until it split with the universal church, thus transforming into the Catholic Church. What’s the name of that universal church that split with Jesus’ one unified church, and when did Jesus’ one unified church transform into the Catholic Church?