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

[steve_b]

There are the spurious epistles in addition to the 7 epistles that are considered to be authentic by many scholars. The ones thought to be authentic also have longer editions that are believed to be 4th century additions. I believe there may be other versions of the 7 that vary as well, but I am not sure. Most scholars think that the short versions are authentic.
earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

I’m familiar with that web site. I quote from it, and quoted from it in my previous post

The Church decides just as the Church always decided on which writings out of hundreds of writings, were inspired and which ones weren’t. As the Church decided on works by Gnostics and othe heretical writers

earlychristianwritings.com/index.html
s:

Wow, that is so veiled I don’t even see it. The Roman church does not envy, and they teach others. That sounds likely for most churches too, I would think. Could this only be speaking of a letter from Clement to Corinth?

I gave Clement’s letter to Corinth, newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

• count the times ***envy ***is used in the letter
• his letter was about teaching and reprimand

So while veiled, in his letter to Rome, Ignatius is recognizing Rome’s position in the Church. That sedition in Corinth was a big deal. Everybody knew about it.

Given what Ignatius was going to suffer, I’m not sure I would have the presence of mind to write letters, and in particular with all these acknowledgments he gives in his letters.

Just being transparent
s:

Wasn’t he writing to the church in Rome because he was imprisoned there and he wanted the congregation to not interfere with him being martyred? Some church members had political influence and at times would make attempts to have people freed. Was he ‘enjoin’ing the Roman church to use their influence in the Roman community to allow him to be found guilty so he could be martyred? I am not a scholar, but it looks like that is the gist of the letter. I don’t think the enjoining is about asking Rome to rebuke other churches. (Didn’t Ignatius rebuke and intervene in the other churches himself in the other letters he wrote?) I don’t know that I fully understand what he is saying here in this epistle. His language can be confusing.

continued…

He wrote his letters on the way to Rome. Salutations are just that. Recognizing who you are writing to.

As to your point, let’s look at this closer using what’s in the body of the letter

Using a section of his epistle to Rome, said in different ways, answering possible issues one might think of, and for space, I’ll use links #[**66 ** (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13847434&postcount=66), #[75 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12938732&postcount=75) , #[50 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13844079&postcount=50) , #[27 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13147774&postcount=27) , …

There’s lots more to pull from
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13847434&postcount=66

 

[PJM]

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.

NO, allow me to clarify the issue for you.

1st What you raise in a Catholic defined Doctrine. Neither Doctrine nor Dogma are “changeable.” The UNDERSTANDING of the issue may be granted in time, further insights GUIDED by the Holy Spirit and expressed by the Catholic magisterium. Such is the case you mention.

2nd. it is of critical importance to understand exactly WHY this additional enlightenment was in an absolute sense, essential:

1st Tim. 2:3-4

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

When GOD freely choose to Create man, He obligated Himself to offer “sufficient” grace so that every Soul, would have at the least, grace offered, to enable them to attain their personal salvation. This GRACE is a Free-gift from God that can be and is often rejected or misapplied.

Until the 16th Century Protestant reformation [revolution], there were NO threats to the One True faith and world-wide Church of Christ that had the potential to have a world-wide effect. “Protestantism” with its many forms and deviations, made necessary a HIGHLY CONDITIONAL POSSIBILITY, for all souls, notably the Souls of non-Catholic-Christians, to merit salvation.

FROM the Catholic Catechism:

**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

HERE’S “THE KICKER”

**847 ****This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvatio**n.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS, THAT GOD WHO HAS TO BE FAIR AND JUST TO BE GOD, WILL PASS JUDGMENT ON SOULS BASED UPON WHAT HE GOD, HAS MADE POSSIBLE FOR A SOUL TO KNOW. NOT WHAT THAT SOUL [FOR ANY REASON] FREELY CHOOSES TO BELIEVE, ACCEPT AND PRACTICE.

So, yes, it is possible, though certainly NOT assured, that Christians outside of the RCC, who through NO personal fault, do NOT know of the absolute need to be practicing-members of the RCC, to attain heaven. This will be FAR more difficult for them as they do NOT have access to the 7 Sacraments, that Jesus Instituted to aid and increase the possibilities of one meriting there personal salvation. This likelihood is further hampered by the fact that ALL faith beliefs, all churches outside of the RCC , are factually in competition with and hold positions that actually contradict what Christ Ordained [Mt 28:18-20] , thus increasing their culpability.

God Bless you, and thanks for asking

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I think what really discourages me is a short talk with today’s Catholic. I was at a bible study with fellow Catholics, and we got on the subject of the need of conversion. Many of them were speaking of our need to “not judge” and “to meet them where they are” and “we don’t know where they are at in their spiritual life.” Totally ignoring the fact that if these people don’t convert, they could go to hell.

I’ m in COMPLETE agreement with you

Keep praying!

 

[Wannano]

NO, allow me to clarify the issue for you.

1st What you raise in a Catholic defined Doctrine. Neither Doctrine nor Dogma are “changeable.” The UNDERSTANDING of the issue may be granted in time, further insights GUIDED by the Holy Spirit and expressed by the Catholic magisterium. Such is the case you mention.

2nd. it is of critical importance to understand exactly WHY this additional enlightenment was in an absolute sense, essential:

1st Tim. 2:3-4

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

When GOD freely choose to Create man, He obligated Himself to offer “sufficient” grace so that every Soul, would have at the least, grace offered, to enable them to attain their personal salvation. This GRACE is a Free-gift from God that can be and is often rejected or misapplied.

Until the 16th Century Protestant reformation [revolution], there were NO threats to the One True faith and world-wide Church of Christ that had the potential to have a world-wide effect. “Protestantism” with its many forms and deviations, made necessary a HIGHLY CONDITIONAL POSSIBILITY, for all souls, notably the Souls of non-Catholic-Christians, to merit salvation.

FROM the Catholic Catechism:

**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

HERE’S “THE KICKER”

**847 ****This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvatio**n.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS, THAT GOD WHO HAS TO BE FAIR AND JUST TO BE GOD, WILL PASS JUDGMENT ON SOULS BASED UPON WHAT HE GOD, HAS MADE POSSIBLE FOR A SOUL TO KNOW. NOT WHAT THAT SOUL [FOR ANY REASON] FREELY CHOOSES TO BELIEVE, ACCEPT AND PRACTICE.

So, yes, it is possible, though certainly NOT assured, that Christians outside of the RCC, who through NO personal fault, do NOT know of the absolute need to be practicing-members of the RCC, to attain heaven. This will be FAR more difficult for them as they do NOT have access to the 7 Sacraments, that Jesus Instituted to aid and increase the possibilities of one meriting there personal salvation. This likelihood is further hampered by the fact that ALL faith beliefs, all churches outside of the RCC , are factually in competition with and hold positions that actually contradict what Christ Ordained [Mt 28:18-20] , thus increasing their culpability.

God Bless you, and thanks for asking

Patrick

Hi Patrick, I am somewhat confused…so I will simply take this opportunity to ask a direct question. Do you agree or disagree with the articles Don Ruggero presented in posts #171 and 172?

 

[josephback]

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.

Do you believe that it is possible for any one church to have the capital T Truth and others to have elements of truth, or does this imply that different groups have equal elements of truth? If truth can be found even in atheism and Gnosticism why did the early church evangelize? It seems superfluous.

 

[steve_b]

Well done:thumbsup:

Thanks and God Bless you

Patrick

my pleasure

 

[steve_b]

Clement’s letter doesn’t mention any authority. It is much less authoritative than Ignatius’ letters. Clement cites Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in Chapter 47 and acknowledges that Paul had authority to intervene in conflicts. Why wasn’t only Peter allowed to do this? And we see other letters of bishops intervening in other churches by letter in the early centuries. Is this letter different than those?

Re: Clement’s letter to Corinth. First Epistle

Clement’s letter used many styles of writing within the letter. But he did lower the boom as well. Ch’s 59 & 65 shows consequences for THEM if they don’t submit, thereby ending their sedition, then there is the expectation sedition has ended by them sending back to Rome the emissaries with the good news. THAT demonstrates papal authority DURING apostolic times.
s:

This writing by Irenaeus you just cited is interesting. In the paragraph above this it says that the church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. “by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;”
That seems to conflict with Romans 15:20-24
“20 And thus **I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; **21 but as it is written,
“THEY WHO HAD NO NEWS OF HIM SHALL SEE,
AND THEY WHO HAVE NOT HEARD SHALL UNDERSTAND.”
22 For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you; 23 but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain—for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company [k]for a while—”

Paul decided he was DONE working with the Jews. That was his choice. So he focuses on the Gentiles. Peter worked with everyone. While Paul was still Saul, Peter brought the first Gentiles (Cornelius’s family) into the Church. Later, Paul ultimately specialized with the Gentiles by his choice
s:

I just think that is an interesting aspect of the letter. Who did found the church at Rome? This example shows that it only takes a few centuries (or less) for history to become confused.

Peter went to Rome 1st.

Look at Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome. His opening lines

Rom 1: 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I want you to know, brethren, that *I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), *in order that I may reap some harveste] among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish: 15 so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

*His epistle was written ~55 a.d. The Church is already in Rome. *, * that doesn’t mean however, that when Paul does get to Rome, that he doesn’t build the Church with Peter

Look at what Paul said just before that*

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. * 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, ** 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. *
** 11* For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you*

**Q:**If Paul literally, isn’t going to build on another man’s work, what’s he doing writing THAT?
s:

But did the Roman church preside in Rome - the region where Ignatius was imprisoned and was seeking political influence?

Yes the Church of Rome presides in and from Rome

Ignatius otoh, wasn’t seeking political influence. He wanted to die. He wanted no favor, no interference. He wanted his tomb as he said in his letter, to be in the belly of the beasts.
s:

Or did the bishop of the church in Rome preside over all of Christianity? It sounds more like the first to me. I will read it again.

What part of Christianity was Peter not presiding over?

When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, then after the resurrection, told Peter to feed and rule my sheep, what part of “my sheep” was Jesus leaving out for Peter?

 

[steve_b]

Hi Patrick, I am somewhat confused…so I will simply take this opportunity to ask a direct question. Do you agree or disagree with the articles Don Ruggero presented in posts #171 and 172?

Do you have a specific question? #171 , #172

 

[mackbrislawn]

Dear friend in Christ,

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

OR: Is this not a factor in salvation’s path?

God Bless you,
Patrick

I suppose denominational churches would not necessarily claim their denomination is the one true church. Although the Church of Christ, which claims they are not a denomination, does think of itself as the true New Testament Church.

But the phrase “Church of the Bible” reveals the difference between Catholic and Protestant mind sets. The Catholic Church does not think of itself as a Church of the Bible. It is a Church of the Apostles, founded directly upon their oral teaching, as directed by Jesus. Christian scripture comes from the Church, not the Church from scripture. Church exists first, then scripture.

Catholics assume Church, and from Church derive scripture. Protestants assume scripture, and from scripture derive Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Do you agree or disagree with the articles Don Ruggero presented in posts #171 and 172?

Wannano, as a priest long in dialogue with Christians not in full communion with the Roman Church, let me suggest areas to help facilitate your discussion, with information you need of those talking Catholic perspectives in dialogue with non-Catholic Christians

I’ve seen the initial question was fundamentally flawed, based on an ecclesiology recognizable to Catholics & Orthodox, and few others, but meaningless to a vast number of Christians. It’s a basic premise today that the starting point in dialogue, as Catholics, and this by directive of the Pope, is not what emphasizes division but rather what unites us. Thus in Ut Unum Sint, par. 49:
*The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium links its teaching on the Catholic Church to an acknowledgment of the saving elements found in other Churches and Ecclesial Communities /…/

In a similar way, the bilateral theological dialogues carried on with the major Christian Communities start from a recognition of the degree of communion already present, in order to go on to discuss specific areas of disagreement. The Lord has made it possible for Christians in our day to reduce the number of matters traditionally in dispute*
Questions to ask of dialogue partners who are Catholic:

Q. 1: How does what you say mirror the approach of Ut Unum Sint, the encyclical of Pope St. John Paul II on relations with Christians outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church? (Referenced in post 172)

Q. 2: Are you in complete and unreserved agreement with the initiatives of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity? In what ways are you conveying their thought and complying with their directives by your statement? How do you affirm that what you advance is their vision? (Example: are you promoting “From Conflict to Communion?”)

Q. 3: Are you in unreserved agreement with the following paragraph of Unitatis Redintegratio,the document of the world’s bishops at Vatican II on Ecumenism, particularly those points in bold:
*3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion /…/ [E]ven in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ

**The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such**, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.*
This is important as dialogue MUST occur according to the mind of Rome TODAY when speaking about Catholic positions relative to non-Catholics

In the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, we read in paragraph 6: “The new edition of the Directory is meant to be an instrument at the service of the whole Church and especially of those who are directly engaged in ecumenical activity in the Catholic Church. The Directory intends to motivate, enlighten and guide this activity, and in some particular cases also to give binding directives in accordance with the proper competence of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity”

How, exactly, by your dialogue do you articulate that you reflect the mind of Vatican II? It’s proper to also ask: is what you say the perfect echo and reflection of the Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Office of your National Conference of Catholic Bishops? Otherwise, you run the risk that people say things which have been superannuated in the area of how we TODAY understand the relationships between Rome and the many other Churches & ecclesial communities & non-Catholic Christians that are in true, if sadly impaired, communion

I hope this helps provide clarification. This was, after all, a most special aspect of my life’s work

 

[Abu]

There is no question that the Catholic Church is the One True-Faith Church, the only one established by Christ Himself, and which vetted, collected and authorised the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God.

As Vatican II’s *Unitatis Redintegratio *(Decree on Ecumenism) emphatically teaches:
3. Extracts:
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. **For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. **This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. **For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
**
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

4. Extracts:
The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities. At these meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both Communions. In addition, the way is prepared for cooperation between them in the duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience; and, wherever this is allowed, there is prayer in common. Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform.

When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. **This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.

**11. Extracts:
**At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.
**
Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[Darryl_B]

I would like to approach this from a slightly different angle. The Catholic Church has never assigned anyone to hell. The Catholic Church on the other hand has declared “saints” to heaven.

All too often, the ecumenical position of the Catholic Church is taken to be a license for division by those who choose that path, when that is not and never was the intention behind the original declaratives. Here is my license, handed to me by the Catholic Church, it is a license for me to not recognize the Catholic Faith, and a license to heaven.

I often wonder why so many non-Catholic faiths seem so desperate to seek approval from the Catholic Church. The fact that she doesn’t pass judgment prudently, is not the same as handing out licenses.

 

[susanlo]

Re: Clement’s letter to Corinth. First Epistle

Clement’s letter used many styles of writing within the letter. But he did lower the boom as well. Ch’s 59 & 65 shows consequences for THEM if they don’t submit, thereby ending their sedition, then there is the expectation sedition has ended by them sending back to Rome the emissaries with the good news. THAT demonstrates papal authority DURING apostolic times.

What was Clement proposing to do? It says they would be guilty of sin and they would not support the behavior. Don’t Ignatius’ letters also offer strict warnings and commands for proper behavior? I think Ignatius writes as much more of an authority in his letters than Clement does. Ignatius doesn’t request to have a messenger send word back - but he was expecting to be martyred.

Paul decided he was DONE working with the Jews. That was his choice. So he focuses on the Gentiles. Peter worked with everyone. While Paul was still Saul, Peter brought the first Gentiles (Cornelius’s family) into the Church. Later, Paul ultimately specialized with the Gentiles by his choice

Paul was led by God to minister to the uncircumcised. Peter mostly preached to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:7-8) I think they clearly felt it was God’s leading and not their own choice. (I am not saying you disagree with this.)

Peter went to Rome 1st.

Look at Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome. His opening lines

Rom 1: 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I want you to know, brethren, that *I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), *in order that I may reap some harveste] among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish: 15 so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

*His epistle was written ~55 a.d. The Church is already in Rome. *, * that doesn’t mean however, that when Paul does get to Rome, that he doesn’t build the Church with *Peter

Look at what Paul said just before that

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, ** 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. *
** 11** For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you*

**Q:**If Paul literally, isn’t going to build on another man’s work, what’s he doing writing THAT?

I am not sure why he was inspired to write that. It sounds like Paul was writing to a church in Rome that was established by someone else. It does not say who. He may have later become involved in this church, but he did not found the church as Irenaeus claims.

Yes the Church of Rome presides in and from Rome

Ignatius otoh, wasn’t seeking political influence. He wanted to die. He wanted no favor, no interference. He wanted his tomb as he said in his letter, to be in the belly of the beasts.

That’s exactly the influence he was requesting.
“Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one.”
" I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ."
He is very specifically asking them not to intervene or try to help him. He wants them to help, if at all, that he be found guilty.
I think that the church in Rome to which he was being transported as a Roman prisoner presided in that very region and had members in the church who were involved in some ways with government affairs. History is very sketchy, but he seems to think the church in Rome can have influence over the outcome of what becomes of him in Rome.

What part of Christianity was Peter not presiding over?

When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, then after the resurrection, told Peter to feed and rule my sheep, what part of “my sheep” was Jesus leaving out for Peter?

Jesus did have a 3-fold interaction about sheep. Maybe part of restoring him after denying Christ 3 times. But, how did Peter exercise his authority over the other apostles? Did he step in and intervene in the churches that Paul and others started? I don’t think Peter understood that this was his role. I don’t think the other apostles were seeking direction from Peter for this.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano, as a priest long in dialogue with Christians not in full communion with the Roman Church, let me suggest areas to help facilitate your discussion, with information you need of those talking Catholic perspectives in dialogue with non-Catholic Christians

I’ve seen the initial question was fundamentally flawed, based on an ecclesiology recognizable to Catholics & Orthodox, and few others, but meaningless to a vast number of Christians. It’s a basic premise today that the starting point in dialogue, as Catholics, and this by directive of the Pope, is not what emphasizes division but rather what unites us. Thus in Ut Unum Sint, par. 49:
*The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium links its teaching on the Catholic Church to an acknowledgment of the saving elements found in other Churches and Ecclesial Communities /…/

In a similar way, the bilateral theological dialogues carried on with the major Christian Communities start from a recognition of the degree of communion already present*, in order to go on to discuss specific areas of disagreement. The Lord has made it possible for Christians in our day to reduce the number of matters traditionally in dispute
Questions to ask of dialogue partners who are Catholic:

Q. 1: How does what you say mirror the approach of Ut Unum Sint, the encyclical of Pope St. John Paul II on relations with Christians outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church? (Referenced in post 172)

Q. 2: Are you in complete and unreserved agreement with the initiatives of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity? In what ways are you conveying their thought and complying with their directives by your statement? How do you affirm that what you advance is their vision? (Example: are you promoting “From Conflict to Communion?”)

Q. 3: Are you in unreserved agreement with the following paragraph of Unitatis Redintegratio,the document of the world’s bishops at Vatican II on Ecumenism, particularly those points in bold:
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion /…/ [E]ven in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ

**The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such**, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
This is important as dialogue MUST occur according to the mind of Rome TODAY when speaking about Catholic positions relative to non-Catholics

How, exactly, by your dialogue do you articulate that you reflect the mind of Vatican II? It’s proper to also ask: is what you say the perfect echo and reflection of the Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Office of your National Conference of Catholic Bishops? Otherwise, you run the risk that people say things which have been superannuated in the area of how we TODAY understand the relationships between Rome and the many other Churches & ecclesial communities & non-Catholic Christians that are in true, if sadly impaired, communion

I hope this helps provide clarification. This was, after all, a most special aspect of my life’s work

Thank you for giving me those guidelines. I am sure I did not ask my question in a manner that properly enables dialogue. Looking back at your posts 171 and 172 and the last paragraph of Patrick’s post that gave me a bit of a knee jerk reaction, I do see how I could have worded my response more effectively. I will post Patrick again. Thanks.

 

[Wannano]

NO, allow me to clarify the issue for you.

So, yes, it is possible, though certainly NOT assured, that Christians outside of the RCC, who through NO personal fault, do NOT know of the absolute need to be practicing-members of the RCC, to attain heaven. This will be FAR more difficult for them as they do NOT have access to the 7 Sacraments, that Jesus Instituted to aid and increase the possibilities of one meriting there personal salvation. This likelihood is further hampered by the fact that ALL faith beliefs, all churches outside of the RCC , are factually in competition with and hold positions that actually contradict what Christ Ordained [Mt 28:18-20] , thus increasing their culpability.

God Bless you, and thanks for asking

Patrick

 

[Wannano]

NO, allow me to clarify the issue for you.

So, yes, it is possible, though certainly NOT assured, that Christians outside of the RCC, who through NO personal fault, do NOT know of the absolute need to be practicing-members of the RCC, to attain heaven. This will be FAR more difficult for them as they do NOT have access to the 7 Sacraments, that Jesus Instituted to aid and increase the possibilities of one meriting there personal salvation. This likelihood is further hampered by the fact that ALL faith beliefs, all churches outside of the RCC , are factually in competition with and hold positions that actually contradict what Christ Ordained [Mt 28:18-20] , thus increasing their culpability.

God Bless you, and thanks for asking

Patrick

Patrick, Don Ruggero has kindly responded to me and I realize I asked a question in a manner not conducive to proper dialogue. I apologize for that. After reading his posts of 171 and 172 I was quite elated. When I read your last paragraph above I experienced considerable deflation. It may be that I read to much into the articles Don presented and so I felt your last paragraph countered what the articles were communicating. As to what in your paragraph gives me a problem I have to say…all three sentences.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Patrick, Don Ruggero has kindly responded to me and I realize I asked a question in a manner not conducive to proper dialogue. I apologize for that. After reading his posts of 171 and 172 I was quite elated. When I read your last paragraph above I experienced considerable deflation. It may be that I read to much into the articles Don presented and so I felt your last paragraph countered what the articles were communicating. As to what in your paragraph gives me a problem I have to say…all three sentences.

No…you did not read too much into the writings of the Council and of the Pope. Rather you reacted positively to the new concepts and the new approaches which have marked Rome since Vatican II – the meeting of the world’s Catholic bishops which profoundly reshaped the Church’s thought on relations with non-Catholics. This has carried forward across the decades since the Council.

As Saint John Paul II said, there has been a “significant change in attitudes” and this has to be reflected in every comment a Catholic makes on issues that touch upon Catholic relations with non-Catholics.

 

[Tomdstone]

No…you did not read too much into the writings of the Council and of the Pope. Rather you reacted positively to the new concepts and the new approaches which have marked Rome since Vatican II – the meeting of the world’s Catholic bishops which profoundly reshaped the Church’s thought on relations with non-Catholics. This has carried forward across the decades since the Council.

As Saint John Paul II said, there has been a “significant change in attitudes” and this has to be reflected in every comment a Catholic makes on issues that touch upon Catholic relations with non-Catholics.

Has the teaching of the Catholic Church on ecumenism changed?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Has the teaching of the Catholic Church on ecumenism changed?

The most helpful resource to turn to, actually, is Ut Unum Sint, which the Pope wrote on this issue. It expresses well the Church’s thought some thirty years after Vatican II. As Saint John Paul II said, thoughts had greatly developed – as they continue to do, now 20 years after the encyclical. It is written is a very personal style and is imminently readable:

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

This year, Pope Francis will inaugurate, in October, during his apostolic visit to Sweden, the Joint Commemoration by Catholics and Lutherans of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation. A year of commemorative events will follow.

The Catholic Church has been preparing for this event now for years. You can read about it here

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

 

[PJM]

Hi Patrick, I am somewhat confused…so I will simply take this opportunity to ask a direct question. Do you agree or disagree with the articles Don Ruggero presented in posts #171 and 172?

And WHY wouldn’t I? They say the SAME thing, if rightly understood.

God Bless you,
Patrick