On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

[Abu]

Kliska #158
there is a problem in translating “ekklesia” as “church.” God’s got a congregation, He has one congregation of out-called ones. Only one, as that is how we are grouped. The body of Christ, singular. Who makes up that congregation is what is really being debated. The reason why this must go into semantics is because of the way you ask your question in the OP. I don’t have a “church.” God has His out-called ones. His Congregation.

**
ECCLESIA.** The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia, meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew *kahal *in both a secular and a religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 16:18) and of a singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5). **The Catechism of Trent defines Ecclesia as the Church, which is the faithful of the whole world (I, 10,2). (Etym. Latin ecclesia, universal or an individual Church; from Greek ekklesia, assembly of people called together.) [My bold].
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

So there is no problem whatsoever with the reality that Christ built His Church on Peter who is his Supreme Vicar in His Catholic Church for the whole world.

Christ’s Catholic Church teaches that other Christians are linked to the Catholic Church through baptism though not having the fullness of truth.

 

[steve_b]

THE GREAT REPLY:thumbsup:

MY COMMENTS ADDED LATER

Actually Jesus Didn’t

**The first name for the NOW RCC was “The Way”
**
Later the Church was called "Christians"

Acts 11:26 “And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.”

And not too long after that, the Church was first called CATHOLICS, a term that has remained to the present day:

CATHOLIC. Its original meaning of “general” or “universal” has taken on a variety of applications in the course of Christian history. **First used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) (Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2), it is now mainly used in five recognized senses: **1. the Catholic Church as distinct from Christian ecclesiastical bodies that do not recognize the papal primacy; 2. the Catholic faith as the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (Vincentian Canon); 3. orthodoxy as distinguished from what is heretical or schismatical; 4. the undivided Church before the Eastern Schism of 1054; thereafter the Eastern Church has called itself orthodox, in contrast with those Christian bodies which did not accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon on the divinity of Christ.

In general, today the term “Catholic” refers to those Christians who profess a continued tradition of faith and worship and who hold to the Apostolic succession of bishops and priests since the time of Christ. (Etym. Latin catholicus, universal; Greek katholikos, universal.)

Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

God Bless,
Patrick

:tiphat: hi Patrick,

hope you don’t mind me sharing a few thoughts

On just 2 of many titles for Jesus, “the way” and “the Christ”, those terms “the way” Acts 9:2 and “Christian” Acts 11:26 would make sense to call the followers of Jesus in those terms.

**otoh, “The Church” was called
**
**Acts 9:31 **“the church throughout al **ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ****” as in, “The Kataholos Church”, as in “the Church according to the whole” , as in “the universal Church”, as in ****Catholic in English **
** catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

**As an historical aside,

Ignatius was already bishop of Antioch in 70 a.d. Acts was written ~70 a.d. Ignatius was considered the first to write “Catholic Church”.

He writes: in ~107 a.d.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Epistle to the Smyrnæans

All during his time as bishop, he would have taught this in his preaching and instruction. He would have learned that from the apostles who ordained him and from John who he was a direct disciple of…

As another aside, Ignatius writes to the Church of Rome, as the Church who presides, i.e. holds the presidency.Epistle to the Romans

Here’s what I find interesting.

I ask the following questions

did anyone anywhere say Huh , to any of these huge statements made by Ignatius? in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans

for example, putting his points in that epistle, into bullet points

• you all follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.
• Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
• wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
• It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
• the Church of Rome, as the Church which holds the presidency. Epistle to the Romans

Where’s the objections? Where’s the push back? He writes that as matter of fact.

What’s also interesting, Ignatius in his letter to Rome, he knew about Clement’s actions (pope of Rome) against the Corinthian bishops who were in sedition. I bring this up to not only show how connected everyone is, but that one bishop in particular has authority over the others… And the understanding, that Clement can act throughout the whole, because of his office. This is already taking place “DURING” apostolic times.

Just adding a few thoughts

 

[benhur]

It’s actually clear. Church documents are clear.

Hi Steve,

Perhaps they are. I was referencing more how pertaining decrees are not in one lump sum/place. Kind of scattered. So if you look in one place it may be clear, until you look at another place, that is clear unto itself but not against the former. And of course some have “gray” areas such as forgivable ignorance or what is accountable knowledge of the CC.

Then after that, are individual Catholic pronouncements that must be adhered to(Communion, Confession etc) for “salvation” that can not possibly be done outside the church,(by a certified priest etc.).

Anyways, that is my impression.

Blessings

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Since we are asking “on what basis does your Church claim…” then one would, and should ask, those pastors for their “proof”, for their answer(s) properly referenced,… agreed?

Taking this in steps

Questions one should ask them,

1. What came first

• the NT scriptures,
• or the Church Jesus established and gave all His promises to?

The answer is the Church. There were no NT writings at the time of the institution of the Church. Those writings came much later. Those who wrote, were by definition, already in the Church they were writing to and for. An official canon of scripture (list of inspired books) wasn’t available till 382 a.d. Therefore, no official canon no official bible. So what was the pillar and foundation of truth for 382 years? The bible? 1 Timothy 3:15 ,

The Church

• wrote the NT,
• collected only the books the Church deemed inspired,
• and canonized only those books.

The bible came from the Church, the Church didn’t come from the bible. The bible was written in, by, and for the Church.

2. what Church would that be?

• It is THE Church that only Jesus said He will build on Peter. THAT Church by definition is still here today and will be here forever! If it ever failed, then Jesus would have failed.
• one can see “IN WRITING” the Church is consistently there from the 1st century.
• It’s** The Catholic Church** #34 ,
• that link is a short condensed 400 year history, the proof that is required to answer the question, all properly referenced

3. Where / when in history do we see the notion of a " non-denominational, protestant church"

• Truth is, scripture and Tradition condemns divisions, schisms, sects, heresies as well as those who do that. And there is no expiration date to those condemnations. It’s always going to be condemned. Great Heresies
• AND Scripture directly says those who do and cause others to do it, they don’t serve Our Lord Jesus but Satan. And if they die in that state, they won’t inherit heaven (see link #34 , and particularly the explanation of Rom 16:15… & Gal 5:19…)

Do you think they know where those condemnations are in scripture? Do you think they know where to find it in (T)radition either. I’d say that If they did find it, they would have to come to the same conclusion Cardinal John Henry Newman came to when he converted to Catholicism. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant” . Maybe you take this back to them and show them this information yourself

If you open up that link #34 , and open up all the internal links inside that link you’ll see the answers to Scripture + Tradition that prove the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established, & division from this Church is condemned.

Those quotes show how misled they are. They don’t know history and they don’t know the scriptures they claim to preach from.

The consequence for those who mislead, is dire Matthew 18:6

Thanks for this.
I have an ongoing prayer thread going on with regards to obstacles to conversion to catholicism, and when those two pastors came over to try to ask why I wanted to convert and persuade me not to, I had been adviced by many catholics on the forum to not verse sling with them or deride their faith nor put them down. I sure certainly print what you said up and cite it, and so on. They want to have another talk with me again, so I’ll need advice from the local priest and catholics on how to proceed concerning that.

The great thing is that I recorded their objections and transcribed the conversation, which I hope to share with people on here for greater scrutiny and insight on how to proceed. I can also see what their biggest problems are and what they may be telling my wife privately.

In my discussion with them, they agreed with me that Jesus established the Catholic Church, BUT Jesus took the reformers OUT of the Church and took them into the future with the Protestant Church, which they believe is the same Church that He established. But, if that is so, and they had to leave the Catholic Church, then as you pointed out, that would be saying that the gates of hell prevailed against his Church and things became so bad it had to happen.

One of the questions that they kept asking me was “why”—as in, why do I think the Catholic Church is better; Why do I want to become a catholic; Why do I want to convert; Why would I want to join the Catholic Church and not stay in the Protestant Church; Why would I step back into what they perceive is the former church of Jesus Christ, which has strayed in their eyes from the Bible and bible teaching. They believe that I’d be joining The Catholic Church to worship saints and Mary. They even said it’s acceptable to be a catholic at heart as long as I don’t actually convert.

I’m looking forward to reading Scott Hahn’s books, especially Rome Sweet Home(I think that is the correct name) and Devin Rose’s Protestant Dilemma.

 

[susanlo]

As an historical aside,

Ignatius was already bishop of Antioch in 70 a.d. Acts was written ~70 a.d. Ignatius was considered the first to write “Catholic Church”.

He writes: in ~107 a.d.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Epistle to the Smyrnæans

All during his time as bishop, he would have taught this in his preaching and instruction. He would have learned that from the apostles who ordained him and from John who he was a direct disciple of…

As another aside, Ignatius writes to the Church of Rome, as the Church who presides, i.e. holds the presidency.Epistle to the Romans

Here’s what I find interesting.

I ask the following questions

did anyone anywhere say Huh , to any of these huge statements made by Ignatius? in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans

for example, putting his points in that epistle, into bullet points

• you all follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.
• Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
• wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
• It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
• the Church of Rome, as the Church which holds the presidency. Epistle to the Romans

Where’s the objections? Where’s the push back? He writes that as matter of fact.

Ignatius’ letters are very interesting to the subject.

I understand that his letters have multiple recensions and there is scholarly debate as to the authenticity of them. The shorter recensions are mostly thought to be authentic. I know very little of the debate, but it is important to keep in mind.

Also, unlike the NT letters that were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were written to the church it was addressed to as well as meant to be instructive to all Christians for millennia to come, these were written to the church and don’t claim to be inspired or instructive for all generations to come. Even some of the NT letters are understood within a cultural context (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 and 1 Corinthians 14:34).

But, these letters do give us information about what the church at the time was like and what was happening and what they were teaching. He did call the church - catholic/universal. I don’t think that anyone disagrees that the church was universal in nature in the early centuries. They were separate churches that were united with Christ.

He does say that those in the church should follow the bishops. This is good advice in general. When a church appoints leaders, they should be respected and followed. I think this is good for all churches. But, most important in the letter to the Smyrnaeans he was warning about a Gnostic heresy called Docetism. This heresy said that Jesus Christ had no body, but was just a phantom-like image and that he didn’t really suffer on the cross. I imagine at that time when there wasn’t a Bible in every household and various people were going around sharing all kinds of different teachings, it was more important than ever to seek the trained bishops to make sure that things were being done validly. I think it makes sense to say this.

What’s also interesting, Ignatius in his letter to Rome, he knew about Clement’s actions (pope of Rome) against the Corinthian bishops who were in sedition. I bring this up to not only show how connected everyone is, but that one bishop in particular has authority over the others… And the understanding, that Clement can act throughout the whole, because of his office. This is already taking place “DURING” apostolic times.

I didn’t see anything about Clement or Corinthian bishops in the letter you linked. Is there a particular quote that he said in regards to this that I missed?

Also, you mentioned earlier in the post about the Letter to the Romans as the church who presides. I only see the term presides in the greeting. “…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 this the quote you are speaking of? Or is it something in one of the other versions of the letter?

 

[Alex_H]

Does the Catholic Church claim to be the one true-faith church of the bible?

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Does the Catholic Church claim to be the one true-faith church of the bible?

Yes: catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

 

[Alex_H]

Yes: catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

I was under the impression that the church has taken a much more nuanced view since the 1950s…meaning that virtually anyone can go to heaven, regardless of the Church.

 

[Abu]

susanlo #163
I imagine at that time when there wasn’t a Bible in every household and various people were going around sharing all kinds of different teachings, it was more important than ever to seek the trained bishops to make sure that things were being done validly.

Precisely what happens today is “various people were going around sharing all kinds of different teachings.” It is only through Christ’s Catholic Church that the fullness of truth is proclaimed.

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

 

[Abu]

Alex H #166
I was under the impression that the church has taken a much more nuanced view since the 1950s…meaning that virtually anyone can go to heaven, regardless of the Church.

Totally false.

14 of Lumen Gentium, Vatican II
“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.”

That is precisely why the faithful Catholic responds with the reality that “If you believe that people are probably ‘just fine where they are’ and never even give them a reason to consider Catholicism, you may be unwittingly neglecting your role as the person God sent to invite them to a life of eternal happiness.”

Pope Benedict Breaks His Silence On “Deep Crisis”
By Steve Skojec on March 16, 2016
onepeterfive.com/pope-ben…n-deep-crisis/

'It’s a subject I’ve addressed in these pages more than once. Catholics
MUST evangelize those of other faiths with a desire to convert them. “Dialogue” alone, without the intent of winning converts, is useless. In January, I wrote about my own experiences as a Catholic missionary, and how rare that missionary spirit is today:
‘Religious indifference — the idea that usually takes shape under the deception that people all religious faiths are on a shared journey to salvation — has become alarmingly commonplace among the Catholic clergy. So much so that it comes as a shock when we hear a priest, bishop, or pope say something which indicates to the hearer that conversion to Catholicism is of the utmost importance. It is much more likely that we’ll hear apologies for the historical fact that Catholic missionaries brought the saving faith of their Church to the indigenous peoples of various lands, often at the cost of their own lives.

‘I’ve written before on why we can’t be indifferent to indifferentism. Eric Sammons has discussed one of the most important missing components of effective evangelization. We talk constantly in these pages about the importance of good liturgy, of reverence, of authentic devotion, and spiritual warfare.

‘At the heart of it all, though, is one simple question: do you believe that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation?

‘If you can’t answer that question with a resounding, “Yes!”, you can’t be an effective missionary. If you don’t have a conviction that Christ established ONE Church for the purpose of transmitting the sacraments and thereby offering access to the graces necessary for heaven, you will never have the courage to share that treasure with others. If you believe that people are probably “just fine where they are” and never even give them a reason to consider Catholicism, you may be unwittingly neglecting your role as the person God sent to invite them to a life of eternal happiness.’

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

I was under the impression that the church has taken a much more nuanced view since the 1950s…meaning that virtually anyone can go to heaven, regardless of the Church.

Indeed, but I wanted to make a point: What does Catholic mean and what Church is it referring to.

I’d like to contrast that with the protestant church I current attend. They recite the Nicene Creed but change “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” to “One Holy Christian Church” or
“One Holy Christian Apostolic Church.”

If protestants believe Catholic Church started to apostate after Rome adopted catholicism as the state religion/legalized it, and they don’t believe the Pope and the bishops in unison can speak on matters of infallibility—because according to them Jesus and the Bible are only infallible—how can they say that the Bible is infallible when they believe fallible men and a fallible pope determined by the power and safeguarding of the Holy Spirit what New Testament scripture was?

The Bible is a Catholic Book. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church----which is the Catholic Church. Which I pointed out and clarified in that link. It isn’t “christian” church; It’s the Catholic Church. That means that Protestants today believe hell prevailed against the Catholic Church and became so bad that Jesus called out the reformers to carry on to the future with The Protestant Church, with the Catholic Church left behind. No doubt the only verse that comes to my mind is Revelation 18:4, where Jesus calls his followers to leave the Whore Of Babylon.

But the Catholic Church is not the Whore Of Babylon; No, that is impossible. Jesus said Hell would never prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would lead it into ALL truth.

 

[josephback]

I think you have raised a very good point here that seems to be passed over. “Anyone can claim to be a pastor or elder, but how does one know that the Gospel they preach is that of Christ.” You asked this in direct reference to someone who does not have “unbroken succession to the age of the Apostles.” A very good question! If we have no way of knowing then indeed we are in trouble!

I am going to expand your thought which I feel is a very good one. Anyone can become a priest. If one becomes a Catholic priest he is placed in direct succession with the Apostles. So he has the hierarchy of the Church above him with “real teaching authority” and because we can trace the lineage of the Church back to the Apostles we know that what is preached by this priest is that which was preached in the beginning.

I know even in my own community there have been priests who have proven to be wolves in sheep’s clothing. Many times I have been told by parishioners how they detest their priest and look forward to the day when he leaves. The whole sexual scandal regarding priests has brought to light a whole other dimension. Even on caf we see Catholic members suggesting people search out a new parish when they have an unsatisfactory priest. Having a hierarchy does not seem to address and solve or eliminate the problem. So to ask your question again: “how does one know that the gospel they preach is that of Christ?”

Catholic priests take an oath of fidelity upon ordination to preach and defend the Catholic faith. A priest is not free to teach just any old doctrine, but exercises a position of trust and responsibility to teach only that which is in the Catechism. There have been bad priests at present and in the past but the vast majority are sincere and upstanding. This link is an enumeration of the oath:

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was under the impression that the church has taken a much more nuanced view since the 1950s…meaning that virtually anyone can go to heaven, regardless of the Church.

Indeed. A part of Lumen Gentium has been quoted. There is more:

*15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.*
   vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was under the impression that the church has taken a much more nuanced view since the 1950s…meaning that virtually anyone can go to heaven, regardless of the Church.

What we see in Lumen Gentium comes to much richer exploration. Pope Saint John Paul II goes on to write about this theme in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, which I encourage you to read in its entirety.

Here is a nice passage to introduce you to the document…with my emphases:

*42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out; scholarships are offered for the training of ministers in the Communities most lacking in resources; approaches are made to civil authorities on behalf of other Christians who are unjustly persecuted; and the slander to which certain groups are subjected is shown to be unfounded.

In a word, Christians have been converted to a fraternal charity which embraces all Christ’s disciples. If it happens that, as a result of violent political disturbances, a certain aggressiveness or a spirit of vengeance appears, the leaders of the parties in question generally work to make the “New Law” of the spirit of charity prevail. Unfortunately, this spirit has not been able to transform every situation where brutal conflict rages. In such circumstances those committed to ecumenism are often required to make choices which are truly heroic.

It needs be reaffirmed in this regard that acknowledging our brotherhood is not the consequence of a large-hearted philanthropy or a vague family spirit. It is rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism and the subsequent duty to glorify God in his work. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism expresses the hope that Baptisms will be mutually and officially recognized. This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement.

It is fitting to recall that the fundamental role of Baptism in building up the Church has been clearly brought out thanks also to multilateral dialogues.*
This expresses the mind of the Church today.

There is also the phenomenal work done by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is the dicastery of the Holy See responsible for Catholics working with and relating to other Christian communities.

The members of this dicastery are principally the ones who are working with their Lutheran counterparts at the international level to coordinate the Joint Commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation which Pope Francis will inaugurate this October, together with the Swedish Lutheran Church and with Catholics and Lutherans around the world.

This joint commemoration will begin on the occasion of his apostolic visit to Sweden – and with a joint service of common prayer at which he will co-preside – and continue for one year with joint observances around the world. The bishops of the United States have already begun to announce their planned commemorations in the various dioceses.

 

[Kliska]

**
ECCLESIA.** The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia, meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew *kahal *in both a secular and a religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 16:18) and of a singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5). **The Catechism of Trent defines *Ecclesia ***as the Church, which is the faithful of the whole world (I, 10,2). (Etym. Latin ecclesia, universal or an individual Church; from Greek ekklesia, assembly of people called together.) [My bold].
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

So there is no problem whatsoever with the reality that Christ built His Church on Peter who is his Supreme Vicar in His Catholic Church for the whole world.

Christ’s Catholic Church teaches that other Christians are linked to the Catholic Church through baptism though not having the fullness of truth.

I’m not arguing whether or not Christ built His Church on Peter or not, simply that the word “church” in English does not carry the same connotation in the minds of people as community, assembly, meeting, gathering, or all out-called ones. There is only one group in His congregation; all out-called ones who responded to His voice. This is important to answer the OP’s question.

 

[benhur]

Thanks for this.
I have an ongoing prayer thread going on with regards to obstacles to conversion to catholicism, and when those two pastors came over to try to ask why I wanted to convert and persuade me not to, I had been adviced by many catholics on the forum to not verse sling with them or deride their faith nor put them down. I sure certainly print what you said up and cite it, and so on. They want to have another talk with me again, so I’ll need advice from the local priest and catholics on how to proceed concerning that.

The great thing is that I recorded their objections and transcribed the conversation, which I hope to share with people on here for greater scrutiny and insight on how to proceed. I can also see what their biggest problems are and what they may be telling my wife privately.

In my discussion with them, they agreed with me that Jesus established the Catholic Church, BUT Jesus took the reformers OUT of the Church and took them into the future with the Protestant Church, which they believe is the same Church that He established. But, if that is so, and they had to leave the Catholic Church, then as you pointed out, that would be saying that the gates of hell prevailed against his Church and things became so bad it had to happen.

One of the questions that they kept asking me was “why”—as in, why do I think the Catholic Church is better; Why do I want to become a catholic; Why do I want to convert; Why would I want to join the Catholic Church and not stay in the Protestant Church; Why would I step back into what they perceive is the former church of Jesus Christ, which has strayed in their eyes from the Bible and bible teaching. They believe that I’d be joining The Catholic Church to worship saints and Mary. They even said it’s acceptable to be a catholic at heart as long as I don’t actually convert.

I’m looking forward to reading Scott Hahn’s books, especially Rome Sweet Home(I think that is the correct name) and Devin Rose’s Protestant Dilemma.

Hi CC,

Sometimes I think “Seek and ye shall find” is a truth that goes across the board. .I mean if you want to seek truth in Catholicism , you shall find it, as well as in Protestantism or Orthodoxy. Why you can even find truth in atheism ,Gnosticism.

It is just the nature of our hearts and our vision. The whole point of the verse is that may God grace us to seek His Truth, His vision.

Of course we are to seek and be like Jesus and that within the Body, the church/community. Of course which "community’’ also matters. I will admit that Catholicism is very attractive, much filled with religious things to partake of. Yet I am also reminded of one of Richard Wiurmbrands (imprisoned under communism for years) sermons, “the power of nothing”. In it he describes being in a prison cell with nothing just the floor, a bowl, and scantily clad. Yet within that darkness he had the deepest intimacy with Christ. No ceremonies, rituals, sacraments, incense, prayer beads etc. But for sure he would tell us the gates of hell could not prevail, break his bond/time with the Lord.

So it is a balance of just what is spiritual. Even Jesus said religion is really corporal works(helping others), but as away to God, so so. Religion can even get in the way, be artificial, “canned”. It is more challenging of coming to God with "less’’ .

Strongly disagree that the reformation suggests a prevailing against the Church. The OT tells the same story. God’s pure message is evident form the Garden to Calvary, and its truth carriers (Judaism) is full of the good , bad and ugly. Israel was diverse and divided and had differing doctrines and teachings, with many failings, *yet *she prevailed gloriously and delivered the perfect Messiah, right on time. So to will the church be presented perfectly and right on time as Christ’s Bride, regardless of sectarianism and imperfections.

Prevailing does not mean never loosing a battle. A wrestler may gain and loose points during the match , but in the end his hand will be raised as the victor . That is "prevailing’’.

From my understanding God always has a faithful remnant, when truth is attacked. Voices of correction have always been heard, way before the reformation. But again what you seek is what you will find in History. The same thing that melts wax hardens clay.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

QUOTE] that would be saying that the gates of hell prevailed against his Church and things became so bad it had to happen.

Hi CC,

I think prevail is being used incorrectly. Something bad or even an error does not mean complete and final victory. Otherwise you are saying Satan prevailed thru Eve, thru Enoch, thru Bathsheba, thru Judas, thru Calvary.

I mean even with the reformation the CC still exists. So she prevails.

Maybe what you mean is that some of her views are not as universal as before the reformation. Yet some of those contrary views were held way before as in the Orthodox. Is Orthodoxy a challenge to “prevailing”?

Sectarianism is not Satan prevailing. It is something else but not not prevailing. Last I heard Christianity is still God’s chosen light of the world. He has not come back to affirm Buddhism, or Islam , or Hinduism. Satan has not prevailed. Are we bloodied, hurting, challenged, could be doing better? Absolutely, but the game, the contest is still on. That has nothing to do with the victorious, prevailing final truth.

Disagree with the presumption that everything has to be squeaky clean and in order, as if the second coming has already occurred, and all His enemies subdued, with nothing better to look forward to.

Another thing to be mentioned, to go beyond the simplicity of your brief though appreciated post, is that one must discuss the nuances and historical development of the CC and her doctrines and practices. It is not as if what is today is exact to the first church. If that were the case the great schism and reformation are monumental aberrations.

So Satan did not, has not prevailed. Were things bad at the schism and at the reformation. Absolutely, and the counter reformation attests to that. I think many Catholics would be appalled at the condition of the western church at that time.

The most the reformation can do today is challenge the idea of an infallible chair as decreed a century and a half ago. But that is not not prevailing.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I’d like to contrast that with the protestant church I current attend. They recite the Nicene Creed but change “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” to “One Holy Christian Church” or
“One Holy Christian Apostolic Church.”

Hi CC’

Sorry to see that, although I have yet to see that. For sure in history P’s do not want to be seen as “Catholic” nor C’s as Protestant.

However, we do not see it as “Roman Catholic” but Catholic as universal, and in the context of what that meant and did not mean in the fourth century.

If protestants believe Catholic Church started to apostate after Rome adopted catholicism as the state religion/legalized it

Not sure apostate is the right word. Perhaps compromise. It is ironic, and I would say sad, that after 300 years of persecution by civil authorities, the church would use civil authorities to enforce faith and dogma, with penalties and anathemas (Council at Nicea). It was the subject of another thread, but it still may exist that the CC justifies that.

and they don’t believe the Pope and the bishops in unison can speak on matters of infallibility—because according to them Jesus and the Bible are only infallible

Correct. Inerrancy is conditional, except for Christ and His Writ. Infallibility is a political term in my opinion, one the church tried to stay away from defining/solidifying till 1870.—

how can they say that the Bible is infallible when they believe fallible men and a fallible pope determined by the power and safeguarding of the Holy Spirit what New Testament scripture was?

I think you answered your own question. Of course any inerrancy is by the Holy Ghost, and by faith we believe. One does not have to be "infallible’’ to be Holy Spirit “inerrant”. That we receive the gifts of God, even the HS Himself , does not make us infallible or even equal. Was Mary equal/infallible to God because she received the Incarnation ?

The Bible is a Catholic Book

I think folks did not say this till the reformation or even beyond that. I think Vat 2 tries to downplay the sectarian, anti ecumenical sound /use of such a wording. It is God’s book.

It isn’t “christian” church; It’s the Catholic Church.

Well, their is scripture and there is history . Scripture says “church”, not catholic, orthodox nor p. The first church was Jewish. In Gentile land it was “Christians” then people of the Way and then Catholic (with patriarchs, the papacy still not dominant hierarchy).

That means that Protestants today believe hell prevailed against the Catholic Church

No, this is Catholic paradigm, statement, trying to get you to question/doubt reformers.

and became so bad that Jesus called out the reformers

“So bad”, not sure, but yes in need of reform. No one doubts this

with the Catholic Church left behind.

Some say yes, some no. But she still exists, just how much is she abiding in full truth, a question for all churches… That which is done for Christ, in truth and spirit, shall never be done away with, left behind.

No doubt the only verse that comes to my mind is Revelation 18:4, where Jesus calls his followers to leave the Whore Of Babylon.

Again some say yes and some say no. I say no but she surely errored. As far as far as the Whore of Babylon, what do we know of its power and seductiveness. It says the very elect are vulnerable. Be careful when one thinks they can never fall (and only “other” churches can).

There is wisdom and there is truth. Sectarianism can hide behind the idea of absolute truth, but wisdom allows for more universality, apart from relativism.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,

Perhaps they are. I was referencing more how pertaining decrees are not in one lump sum/place. Kind of scattered. So if you look in one place it may be clear, until you look at another place, that is clear unto itself but not against the former. And of course some have “gray” areas such as forgivable ignorance or what is accountable knowledge of the CC.

Here’s the search engine for the CCC scborromeo.org/ccc.htm that I use.
there are lots of options available to use in searching.

btw, delete “enter search string” in the search box before you enter a search term. I wish it automatically deleted itself when you enter a term, but it doesn’t.
b:

Then after that, are individual Catholic pronouncements that must be adhered to(Communion, Confession etc) for “salvation” that can not possibly be done outside the church,(by a certified priest etc.).

Anyways, that is my impression.

Blessings

getting the most out of that search engine

let’s pick a subject you bring up “ignorance”

we could do this in 2 ways

1. 
   *] put ignorance in the search line (remember in the search box, first delete "enter search string" before entering a word to search ) here’s the result ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=ignorance&xsubmit=Search&s=SS , all the places where ignorance shows up in the CCC
   *]paragraph 1792 is the 1st paragraph that shows up . If you then open up 1792, you see the description, but if you want to see it in context, Choose this selection under the description Enter the Catechism at this paragraph, and that gives you progression of thought
   
   I hope that helps to simplify and help your searching results

 

[Faith1960]

The office given to Peter by Christ, and continually occupied by succession in the See where Peter was believed to preside and suffer martydom.

Believed to be? Might that not be where it happened?