"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvangelCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
So, again, you reserve for yourself what you object to in the Catholic Church.

That is an injudicious application of a paradigm, EC.
Click to expand...
My reading from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity suggests apostolic recognition by Lutherans and Catholics. Methodists signed the Declaration on Doctrine: Justification. The Church is coming together.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
My reading from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity suggests apostolic recognition by Lutherans and Catholics. Methodists signed the Declaration on Doctrine: Justification. The Church is coming together.
Click to expand...
Amen!

The above is a nonsequitur, but true nonetheless.

Point that has not yet been addressed by you: you reserve for yourself the right to say, “You are outside the realms of Christendom, and are not part of the Christian family when you reject A, B and C”

but do not like it when you have been told, “You are outside the realms of Catholicism, and are not part of the Catholic Church when you reject A, B and C”.

Why do you get to do this but not permit the CC to do this?

(NB: there is no doubt that you are outside of our communion, otherwise you would be permitted to receive at Our Table. That you are imperfectly joined to us, no one can deny.)
 
PRmerger said:
Amen!

The above is a nonsequitur, but true nonetheless.

Point that has not yet been addressed by you: you reserve for yourself the right to say, “You are outside the realms of Christendom, and are not part of the Christian family when you reject A, B and C”

but do not like it when you have been told, “You are outside the realms of Catholicism, and are not part of the Catholic Church when you reject A, B and C”.

Why do you get to do this but not permit the CC to do this?

(NB: there is no doubt that you are outside of our communion, otherwise you would be permitted to receive at Our Table. That you are imperfectly joined to us, no one can deny.)
Click to expand...
Those questions are best directed to the Vatican.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Those questions are best directed to the Vatican.
Click to expand...
That’s absurd.

Why should the Vatican have an answer for your personal inconsistency?

That you reserve the right for yourself what you object to in the CC is your own error.
 
quickstep said:
No full council took up the issue of bible books until Trent. Some individual churches did that but no full council. For example, the Roman church was not even consulted for the Carthage council.
Click to expand...
Actually, Carthage’s canons say that they are sending their decisions “across the water” for approval (i.e., to Rome), and Pope Siricius later signed off on them. But that wouldn’t even have mattered, because, 15 years earlier, after the Council of Rome in 382, Pope Damasus I issued a document, called the “Damascene List”, which contained this:

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Josue Nave [Joshua], one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon, two books [1 & 2 Chronicles]; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias [Isaiah], one book; Jeremias [Jeremiah (**Baruch used to be considered part of Jeremiah)], one book; with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel [Ezekiel], one book; Daniel, one book; Osee [Hosea], one book; Micheas [Micah], one book; Joel, one book; Abdias [Obadiah], one book; Jonas [Jonah], one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc [Habakkuk], one book; Sophonias [Zephaniah], one book; Aggeus [Haggai], one book; Zacharias [Zechariah], one book; Malachias [Malachi], one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job, one book; Tobias [Tobit], one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra & Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Machabees, two books [1 & 2 Maccabees].

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew, one book; according to Mark, one book; according to Luke, one book; according to John, one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle, in number, fourteen. To the Romans, one; to the Corinthians, two; to the Ephesians, one; to the Thessalonians, two; to the Galatians, one; to the Philippians, one; to the Colossians, one; to Timothy, two; to Titus, one; to Philemon, one; to the Hebrews, one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise the canonical epistles, in number, seven. Of Peter the Apostle, two epistles; of James the Apostle, one epistle; of John the Apostle, one epistle; of another John, the presbyter, two epistles; of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle, one epistle.”
 
PRmerger said:
Amen!

The above is a nonsequitur, but true nonetheless.

Point that has not yet been addressed by you: you reserve for yourself the right to say, “You are outside the realms of Christendom, and are not part of the Christian family when you reject A, B and C”

but do not like it when you have been told, “You are outside the realms of Catholicism, and are not part of the Catholic Church when you reject A, B and C”.

Why do you get to do this but not permit the CC to do this?

(NB: there is no doubt that you are outside of our communion, otherwise you would be permitted to receive at Our Table. That you are imperfectly joined to us, no one can deny.)
Click to expand...
It’s actually quite reasonable to reject those who reject Paul.
 
dronald said:
It’s actually quite reasonable to reject those who reject Paul.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That is the Catholic way.

But it appears that there are those who propose that it’s un-Christian to reject those who reject Paul. “Unity no matter our differences” is their mantra, yes?
 
I haven’t found a free site to each Dialogue.

Here’s just the summary of the document on Apostolicity
The world-level Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity offers here a study-document opening fresh perspectives in ecumenical ecclesiology. To indicate further steps toward the visible unity of the Lutheran and Catholic churches, the commission’s document treats (1) the church s apostolic character in continuity with its original foundation, (2) the apostolicity of its ordained ministry, and (3) the means it has for maintaining faith and teaching in that truth which the apostles communicated once and for all to the churches. On the church s apostolicity, the dialogue works within the horizon of the Lutheran-Catholic consensus on justification by the grace of Christ and agreement in confessing the work of the Holy Spirit in gathering believers into the church. From this basis and notwithstanding remaining differences, Lutherans and Catholics agree at a basic level on what makes a church apostolic and they acknowledge, each with characteristic accents, the true apostolicity of each other s churches. Concerning the ordained ministry, the study-document sets forth the complexity of the biblical witness and then relates notable changes over the centuries in the institutional ordering and theology of ministerial office. Today Lutherans and Catholics agree on the priesthood of the whole believing people and on ministry as instituted by God to serve this people, a ministry differentiated for service on both congregational and regional levels. Where Vatican Council II spoke of ministries such as the Lutheran as defective, the dialogue proposes that other Vatican II statements, together with the consensus on justification, point toward a more positive Catholic recognition of Lutheran ministries. On the means by which the churches remain in the truth of the apostolic gospel, the dialogue proposes a Lutheran-Catholic reconciled diversity on the biblical canon and on the relation of Scripture and tradition. While it goes on to acknowledge significant remaining differences over
Click to expand...
amazon.com/Apostolicity-Church-Lutheran-Roman-Catholic-Commission/dp/1932688226
 
EvangelCatholic said:
I think I can safely say that on this issue, Lutherans will gladly concede to Rome. It helps that the Confessions support Holy Orders and that apostolic succession is the norm for most Lutherans. But clearly, this is not ‘do or die’ issue for Lutherans.

Welcome Quickstep. Methodists have bishops.
Click to expand...
evangel,

Yes and we have pastors. All are successors to the apostles because
they are shepherds of the church. I know of no other definition that can
apply historically. I would say the same for Lutherans and Catholics and
other pastors also.

JohnR
 
PRmerger said:
The Catholic Church, too, accepts all Christians. However, some are imperfectly united to us.

When a Christian professes to believe all that the Catholic holds to be true, then he is in communion with us and invited to become One Flesh with Him.
Click to expand...
PR,

Such a distinction was not taught in the NT. There were varieties in the churches
of the NT but to ban communion for other churches is not approved in the NT.
This is taught even by Catholic bible experts, approved with the Imprimatur.

My church accepts all Christians to our communion.

JohnR
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, JohnR

It sounds that you accept bishops but not the lineage argument, right?
Click to expand...
evangel,

I accept any bishop or pastor that has taken on the task of the apostles
as a shepherd of the church. I would reject any bishop or pastor that
has such a position for any other reason.

Regarding the lineage argument, even Catholic history experts say
there is no such thing. There is no literal connection to the apostles
by a lineage of ordination or any other known manner. So yes
I would reject that theory on that basis.

JohnR
 
quickstep said:
evangel,

Yes and we have pastors. All are successors to the apostles because
they are shepherds of the church. I know of no other definition that can
apply historically. I would say the same for Lutherans and Catholics and
other pastors also.

JohnR
Click to expand...
Agree but the tradition of apostolic succession was incommunicado before Constantine converted to Christianity.
 
PRmerger said:
This is a bold statement, quickstep.

Do you have any evidence to support your argument that “all protestants” accept the conclusion of the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon?

I have evidence to refute your position. To wit, here is a Protestant group that considers the Epistles of St. Paul to be satanic in origin:

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm
Click to expand...
PR,

My church does. Every other church I know of does and I read an evangelical
scholars book who claims the evangelicals do also. I can give the name of that
book if you want.

I cannot imagine a protestant church that rejects any book in the NT.
Naturally I cannot speak for every church on the planet.

JohnR
 
quickstep said:
PR,

Such a distinction was not taught in the NT. There were varieties in the churches
of the NT but to ban communion for other churches is not approved in the NT.
This is taught even by Catholic bible experts, approved with the Imprimatur.

My church accepts all Christians to our communion.

JohnR
Click to expand...
John,

You love to throw that imprimatur around, but then why does the Catholic Church teach it? Either you don’t understand the imprimatur, or you are using an erroneous source. We should look at a multitude of sources not just your one book, which I will look into when I have a chance.

Are you contending that their were VALID Christian churches in the first and second century that rejected the Eucharist, or the Deity of Christ as examples?

Ignatius of Antioch wrote against such teachings as Bishop of Antioch and was very vocal about the requirement to submit to the Bishop.
 
=JamesTheJust;11612455]Actually, Carthage’s canons say that they are sending their decisions “across the water” for approval (i.e., to Rome), and Pope Siricius later signed off on them. But that wouldn’t even have mattered, because, 15 years earlier, after the Council of Rome in 382, Pope Damasus I issued a document, called the “Damascene List”, which contained this:
Click to expand...
James,

That does not matter even if true. Both the Carthage church and the Roman
churches were simply individual churches even if the Roman church
was the most respected. Neither had the authority to speak for all
the others. That is the reason for Trent.

Catholic scholars teach that the only official approval of the bible canon
was at Trent. Here is one for you to consider.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Father Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils. No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

p59
“For the first fifteen hundred years of christianity, no christian
church put forth a difinintive list of Bible books. Most christians
had followed St. Augustine and included the “Apocrypha” in the canon,
but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders.”

This is a Catholic book written by an expert Catholic historian for
Catholics. It is correct. Those earlier single church councils
could not speak for all the churches hence the need for Trent
to set the canon for the RCC. The book is excellent and dispels
many of the false history about the deurocanicals. It of course takes
the Catholic position but it teaches good history which I appreciate.

I would accept the position of this expert over any website that I know
teaches your argument. Bottom line is if your argument was true there
would be no need for Trent but there was. Fr. Leinhard makes
that plain.

JohnR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top