I'm not a Catholic because

[Miriam1947]

Interesting. But what do you mean by not capitializing “catholic” Church, PR?

She probably didn’t because it is not capitalized in the creed.

 

[TarkanAttila]

“it is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church *.”
… Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/phome_en.htm*

Present and operative does not mean fully present and fully operative. Also, note: possibly. The only ways in which Christ could be operative in a Protestant circle is in baptism (a sacrament) and the Bible (a part of Sacred Tradition). They have no other valid means. No apostolic succession. No other sacraments. They make Tradition subservient rather than equal to the Bible. So that’s what Protestants have.

If a Protestant circle misuses the Bible or misinterprets it (to some degree, all do), and if they do not baptise converts by a Trinitarian formula, they are completely outside of the Body of Christ. That is why we do not consider Mormons or JWs Christians; they abuse Biblical interpretation, and they do not baptise in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

So if you’ve been baptised by the Trinitarian formula, you are a Christian by the Catholic definition - but you are hanging by a thread.

 

[fbl9]

even if they don’t view it as a sacrament.

 

[fbl9]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Pope Benedict has clearly indicated that true Christianity is not limited to the Roman Catholic expression.

“it is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church *.”
… Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/phome_en.htm*

…
He said the following before he being elected … I include it in order to give insight into the process that led to the above statement.

“In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88 None of the pope’s words here are actually doctrine.

 

[PJM]

=1voice;8761053]Originally Posted by 1voice
“it is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church *.”
… Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/phome_en.htm*

Catholic doctrine is not binding to a Catholic?

OF COURSE IT IS
But friend this is NOT Catholic doctirne, nor taught as such.

By the by; I’m very fond of Dr. Dobson and his Focus Ministry.

Happy new year, and god Bless you,
Pat

 

[PRmerger]

Been searching for the truth for 40 years now. Think I have finally found it in the Roman Catholic Church. Been a baptist, Southern baptist, studied and attended Jehovah Witnesses meetings, belonged to a pentacostal church once, Now going through RCIA classes to become a Catholic. Hopefully this will be the last stop on my road of searching for the truth. God Bless everyone.

Just one note of caution, Derrick, as you go through RCIA: if there comes a point where you learn that the Church teaches something that you simply cannot agree (and there’s going to be this point!), I urge you to not dismiss Catholicism because it doesn’t conform to your own viewpoint.

Remember, we as creatures must conform ourselves to Christ’s views, not find a church that conforms to our views.

Find the Church that was founded by Christ, and then join it, and change your views–not find a church that is made in your own likes and views.

And if you’ve found a Church that makes you squirm a bit, and challenges your viewpoint, then, I daresay, you’ve found the Church Christ built.

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting. But what do you mean by not capitializing “catholic” Church, PR?

Nothing at all.

 

[PJM]

=1voice;8759343]Pope Benedict has clearly indicated that true Christianity is not limited to the Roman Catholic expression.

YES dear friend, and that is TRUE! But understand the message as intended. It does not imply that salvation is available outside the CC because of the fillowing reasons:

1.Christ founded ONLy on Church and ONLY one set of Faith beliefs

1. God Never -EVER tolerted other sets of beliefs than His one single set that He God handed on to His CC for the Salvation of souls as a REAL possibility.
2. The CC is the ONLY Church and ONLY set of Faith beliefs guided, guarded, proteted and warranties by BOTH Jesus in Person and the HS. [Mt. 16:15-19; Mt. 18:18; Mt. 28:16-20; Jn.14:16-17 [fulfilled in John 20:21-22] and Jn.17:15-19.
3. For Benedict to claim that salvation flows through any other church; ANY other set of Faith beliefs and practices is a MORAL IMPOSSIBILITY as it would have to DENY Sacred Tradition AND both Dogma and Doctrine.

5.What His Holiness is saying is this:*Mark 9:38-42 "John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. ***[41] For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward. [MEANING will be offered extra GRACES to be enabled to find the singular tuth of God]… "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea"

In other words it is a very FINE-LINE that such folks tred.

My friend every Informed and Practicing Catholic longs WITH our Pope for the ONE Church that God DIED FOR and Created. We PRAY with you that it will soon come to pass.

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” **

God Bless, and happy New Year:thumbsup:
Pat

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s nice; thank you. Hopefully a musing, as well. In some respects, anyway. Fortunately I’m not Rodney Dangerfeild, though this one seems to be “mined.”

Yep, ya did. My reference about shouting comes from the convention in the many chat rooms I’ve been in that such typography constitutes shouting. Perhaps these fora are exempt from that convention and being new here, and warmly received, I am perhaps ignorant of a difference here. …:bigyikes:

“this” being?

You need out when you want out, and then you are already out. Thank goodness you are not living under the Inquisition. I thank goodness on my behalf as well!

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I am familiar with the** ancient** nature of this belief. But I do not understand it. Is God then more “concentrated” or “aware” of you in the Tabernacle? how far does this effect radiate? How is it different from on the other side of the wall? Is God then “thicker?” in the thousands of churches where there are tabernacles? Does this mean that there is more God on Earth than anywhere else? How is this Presence known other than by pointing to an object? Does God “hear” better in the form of a Host? How is one “closer” to God in a church as distinct from Cathedral Grove, for instance? Is “He” more readily “on call” there than somewhere else? Sorry, I just don’t get it.

Now if you said that God is more “present” in a Holy Man than elsewhere, I might start to agree with you, though I would use the term “transparent to God” than “present.” Not that god is more “concentrated” there, but because an attuned awareness directed to Deity can be an “inspired mouthpiece.”

It appears that your mind has become infected with man made philosophical constructs. Is there an ancient belief as it concerns Christ.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and tommorow

or

Jesus Christ, Ancient, Midieval, Modern and then what…this is a man made construct that Protestant thought has succumbed to and suggesting any belief in that regards causes me concern.

True Christian thought, if you have not noticed, by default correctly speaks of “the early Church” and this is manifested by those that speak of “Early Church Fathers” ECF, not Ancient Church Fathers…this infection is not properly found in real Christian writing.

 

[PJM]

=1voice;8760885]“it is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church *.”
… Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/phome_en.htm*

While NOT a mind reader [immagine that]; I suspect for a GREAT many reasons expressed in a later Post that His reference is to the Eastern Churches that are in Schism with Christ One CC; NOT the Protestant Communion, in thes delclration.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Carlan;8761325]Hello 1Voice,
Who belongs to the Catholic Church? 839 CCC.

/The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.
Hope you hang around, to learn more about the Apostolic Church

Happy New Year, and peace to all, Carlan

Calrlan; ya done GOOD! GREAT POST!

God Bless and happy New Year!
Pat

 

[CMatt25]

She probably didn’t because it is not capitalized in the creed.

Why is that?

 

[Miriam1947]

Why is that?

Because catholic means universal and at that time if you were Christian you were part of the universal church.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I am familiar with the ancient nature of this belief. But I do not understand it.

You don’t understand. Hmmm…let me see if I can provide an analogy for you as an apparent theological abecedarian.

You’ve heard of the phrase, “I know that Dad is with us here, as we’re all gathered to celebrate Christmas”, even though Dad passed away in 1991. You can understand some family members saying this, yes?

Now, imagine this family, in 1990 saying, “Dad left for work, but is coming back to celebrate Christmas with us in a few hours.”

Can you see the difference between someone being present physically, vs someone being there “in spirit”?

Is God then more “concentrated”

Yes.

or “aware” of you in the Tabernacle?

No.

how far does this effect radiate?

Well, first you’ll have to limn what “effect” you’re thinking about in your head.

How is it different from on the other side of the wall?

He is physically present inside the tabernacle and NOT physically present outside the tabernacle.

Is God then “thicker?” in the thousands of churches where there are tabernacles?

Thicker? In quotation marks? Perhaps you could present a definition for what you mean, given it’s in QMs, so you must have some nebulous concept in mind.

[quoteDoes this mean that there is more God on Earth than anywhere else?
[/quote]

No, God is present in heaven in His Fullness.

How is this Presence known other than by pointing to an object?

Other than by our sight? Well, we know He is present in the tabernacle through faith and reason. As Aquinas said, centuries ago, “faith will tell us Christ is present when our human senses fail.”

Does God “hear” better in the form of a Host?

No.

How is one “closer” to God in a church as distinct from Cathedral Grove, for instance?

I’m going to make the presumption that Cathedral Grove is a church which does not have Him present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity…and the answer would be the same as how you are closer to your wife when she is physically in the same room with you than if you just feel her love when you’re thousands of miles away.

Is “He” more readily “on call” there than somewhere else?

Again, with your use of QMs you’ll have to explain this nebulous concept that seems to be existing in your own mind about God being “on call”. Sorry, I just don’t get it.

Now if you said that God is more “present” in a Holy Man than elsewhere, I might start to agree with you, though I would use the term “transparent to God” than “present.” Not that god is more “concentrated” there, but because an attuned awareness directed to Deity can be an “inspired mouthpiece.”

Ah, so like a prophet. The CC is with men being prophets.

 

[CMatt25]

Thicker? In quotation marks? Perhaps you could present a definition for what you mean, given it’s in QMs, so you must have some nebulous concept in mind.

PR, so you like QMs less than before you “met” me?

 

[CMatt25]

Because catholic means universal and at that time if you were Christian you were part of the universal church.

So while I can’t speak for PR, if I use your substitution, it appears to me PR would have been saying:

I was baptized into the Latin rite church and I profess, proclaim and confess that I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy universal Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Ok let me ponder all of this to see the true Catholic answer as to who can call themselves a Catholic like PR.

 

[Miriam1947]

You might ask a Lutheran as well.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, so you like QMs less than before you “met” me?

Actually, I am a QM agnostic. Prove to me they’re beneficial and I’ll use them. Otherwise, I’ll deny they exist.

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

 

[PRmerger]

So while I can’t speak for PR, if I use your substitution, it appears to me PR would have been saying:

I was baptized into the Latin rite church and I profess, proclaim and confess that I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy universal Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

There is only One Church, Matt. To the degree that others proclaim the Truths of the Church is the degree that they are joined to His Body.

So when someone says they are part of the “universal” or “catholic” church, they really are only talking about the one church founded by Christ.

And everyone knows what we mean when we say “the Catholic Church”.

It’s like the saying from St. Augustine (paraphrasing),
The very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although everyone wants to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of them would dare to point out his own basilica or house"

Ok let me ponder all of this to see the true Catholic answer as to who can call themselves a Catholic like PR.

Anyone who was baptized into the Catholic Church has the privilege of calling himself a Catholic. But with it comes certain responsibilities: if you want the honor of being called a Catholic then you must espouse the teachings of Catholicism.