The Catholic Church, is the only Church that was there in the beginning.steve-b:
You should have finished the sentence “according to Catholicism”
I gave the Greek word used in that passage from Paul to Titus.
Hey Steve, no need to get all argumentative on me. Take a peek at my profile if you want to know where that “Protestant” stands, and note that I carefully avoided stating “I believe that”…
My church would answer that the universal Church, to which it belongs, was born on Pentecost. The date of the Reformation is in fact of very secondary importance to it in the big scheme of things. It would, nonetheless, state that the Reformation itself was a way of reconnecting with essential parts of the deposit of the faith which had been corrupted through the centuries (however you look at it, there’s no going around that).
From a strictly historical point of view, I am not sure this is true. Luther originally intended to give the impetus for an internal reformation of the Church, not to create a schism. Things did get a little bit out of hand over the course of the events.
Yes. And my church wouldn’t disagree. It would state that there is only one universal Church (it obviously prefers this term to “Catholic”), whose limits man cannot know or define, and of which the different Christian confessions are simply different expressions, different voices, if you like, of the one church. It would say we already are fundamentally united in it by the grace of our common Trinitarian baptism.
Yes he’s talking about the law. He clearly says so.
By that reasoning we should all be orthodox.
yes I read your profile.
Then how could all the warnings of no division even be a possibility?
That’s a bit squishy, true? Who then could even qualify for factious αἱρετικὸν = disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, schismatic, factious, a follower of false doctrine, and who makes the decision for that?
Why would you ask that question? Their identity is rooted in their baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not the baptism of Calvin, Luther, Apollos, or Paul.
This is debatable, within the Catholic Church as well as outside it. As Pope Leo XIII affirmed, it depends on what you mean.
When one converts to be Catholic , what is the process one goes through, EVEN for the validly baptized?steve-b:
Why would you ask that question? Their identity is rooted in their baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not the baptism of Calvin, Luther, Apollos, or Paul.
Here’s a great spot to give a quote
The Catholic approach is to give the world the unvarnished truth.
Did you understand what Paul was identifying & criticizing?
That question came up in another thread of few weeks ago, if memory serves.
) is concerned is that there is effectively no way of weeding out heresy and no way of qualifying someone of “factious heretic”.Probably why Paul said what he did the way he said it, to Bp Titus.steve-b:
That question came up in another thread of few weeks ago, if memory serves.
The answer as far as my church (Calvinist, via Farel, if you want to know
It always eventually gets back to authority. Who is REALLY in charge. When everybody thinks THEY are in charge, then no one is in charge. It’s anarchy
He’s actually, already told us in advance what will happen in the end. When asked, Jesus , looking ahead in time till the end, said Few are saved ergo everybody else isn’t. Ergo everybody else goes to Hell. And THAT comes from the one who judges ALL
One is not rebaptized, because of St Paul’s words:
Absolutely! Oddbird is our sister by our shared baptism. That unvarnished truth should not be minimized.
The process the Church goes through is to inquire as to the “who/what/where/when/how” of the baptism of the individual. That is most often resolved by a discovery of some form of official statement of baptism, as in a certificate. There is a list of the churches/ecclesial communities which the Church has determined do not have a valid baptism; and the others are presumed, subject to any evidence to the contrary, to have performed a valid baptism. When there is doubt, the Church may perform a conditional baptism.
You didn’t answer the question.steve-b:
One is not rebaptized, because of St Paul’s words:
Does Protestantism exhibit as Protestants oneness and unity with what Our Lord commands, ? NO
I’ll over look that last statement.
For clarification,steve-b:
The process the Church goes through is to inquire as to the “who/what/where/when/how” of the baptism of the individual. That is most often resolved by a discovery of some form of official statement of baptism, as in a certificate. There is a list of the churches/ecclesial communities which the Church has determined do not have a valid baptism; and the others are presumed, subject to any evidence to the contrary, to have performed a valid baptism. When there is doubt, the Church may perform a conditional baptism.
It needs to be understood that the Church presumes; that is not the only circumstance where the Church presumes something; for example, a marriage which appears to have been proper is presumed to be valid, unless and until it is show otherwise. So a marriage of a Protestant to another Protestant is presumed valid, unless and until…
Underlying this is that the Church does what is within its power, and not everything is within its power (e.g. a whole lot of research into individual background, etc.). Keep in mind also that we - the Church - are bound by the rules God has given us; God is not bound by those rules.
Which is another way of saying thus: if the baptism was invalid but that cannot be discovered, God does not play “Gotcha!”.
Yes, with the understanding that proof most often is limited to a piece of paper. There was a point where progressives thought they could change the formula to “In the name of the Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier”. Unless someone in the family (or the individual, if they were old enough to remember the baptism) can say that formula (or something similar) was used (or that ecclesial community was notorious for it), the presumption is that it was not.
orthodox or Orthodox? (or orthodox Orthodox?)
I answered as best as I could. What more did you want to know?
Do Protestants exhibit as Christians oneness and unity with what Out Lord commands? I would say YES except I am not in a position to judge.
Why? Aren’t you trying to divide one group of Christians from another? I am not criticizing, just describing your behavior. You are a baptized person, Do you think you are unable to be fractious for some reason? What is it you are trying to do when you identify people as non-CAtholic?