"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[Jon_S_1]

Like I’ve already pointed out, what’s a catholic? If you gave catholics a poll test about catechism and dogma, I would wager 90% won’t get half of it right. And if they did, they wouldn’t care (like remarrying and going for communion). Are they catholic?

Being Catholic has nothing to do with a proficiency test. It has to do with authority handed by Christ to Peter. An office that is divinely protected and fully able to settle disputes authoritatively as described in Matt 18. A catholic is someone who believes that and trusts in God and listens to His church.

There could be 1.2 billion professed Catholics and a billion of them aren’t practicing and it would change nothing about the truth held by the church.

Show me a 'perfect ’ catholic and I will show you a false person as no one is perfect.

 

[ChristopheL]

By what authority can you say the Pope has erred?

Like I said, I look to the historicity of church teachings. None of the church fathers believed the Pope was infallible. Why should I?

Do you have divine revelation?

No, neither does the Pope.

Are you protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error?

No, neither is the Pope. The Church is. I’m not so sure the pope is even in the Church.

Are you and your opinions infallible?

No, neither are his, only those of the Church are. The Pope is not the Church.

You know there is a name for people who read the church documents including the Bible and decide for themselves that they know better than the church. We call them Protestants.

I don’t know better than the Church. You were the one who actually tried to quote scripture to defend papal authority, remember. Well, the church fathers were the ones who defined cannon, looked which gospels were in line with church teachings and which were not. And since they didn’t support papal supremacy (let alone infallibility), I doubt the Church shares your opinion on the verses or that of the self-proclaimed catholic church.

My opinion doesn’t matter, the problem is your presume the Pope to be the Church and thus claim the Church interprets scripture to tell of papal infallibility. Circular reasoning, and of poor historicity.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Like I’ve already pointed out, what’s a catholic? If you gave catholics a poll test about catechism and dogma, I would wager 90% won’t get half of it right. And if they did, they wouldn’t care (like remarrying and going for communion). Are they catholic?

A Catholic is one who has received Baptism into the Church and who believes in all the doctrines of the Church, or at least those of which they are aware. If they’re simply ignorant of doctrine, they’re still Catholic.

I would recommend that you read the Catechism of St Pius X.

 

[ChristopheL]

Being Catholic has nothing to do with a proficiency test. ** It has to do with authority handed by Christ to Peter.**

Authority, yes. Supremacy or infallibility, no.
SOo what about someone who doesn’t think the pope to be infallible? Are they catholic?

An office that is divinely protected and fully able to settle disputes authoritatively as described in Matt 18. A catholic is someone who believes that and trusts in God and listens to His church.

I’m not quite sure, but it seems you actually try to use the Pope and the Church as synonyms. I hope you’re not, because even for a catholic, that’s stretching it.
Show me a church father that agreed with papal infallibility. Now, weren’t the church fathers the ones who defined cannon, and decided what was in and out of line with the teachings of Jesus as they were passed on? Infused with the Holy Spirit.
So clearly, they don’t agree with your interpretation (or that of the schismatic catholic church) of Matt 18, or they would have either supported papal authority or not included Matt 18.

There could be 1.2 billion professed Catholics and a billion of them aren’t practicing and it would change nothing about the truth held by the church.

No it wouldn’t because the truth is not in the catholic church.

Show me a 'perfect ’ catholic and I will show you a false person as no one is perfect.

Rather, show me one church father who supported ecumenism.

 

[ChristopheL]

A Catholic is one who has received Baptism into the Church and who believes in all the doctrines of the Church, or at least those of which they are aware. If they’re simply ignorant of doctrine, they’re still Catholic.

I would recommend that you read the Catechism of St Pius X.

Yet, plenty of non-catholics by that definition can walk into any church and receive communion and many priests are fine with it. Chaos.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Yet, plenty of non-catholics by that definition can walk into any church and receive communion and many priests are fine with it. Chaos.

There are no non-Catholics who fit that definition. If they fit that definition, they’re Catholic.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Yet, plenty of non-catholics by that definition can walk into any church and receive communion and many priests are fine with it. Chaos.

Here, Cristophe, these should help:

catholicdoors.com/faq/qu76.htm

catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

 

[Jon_S_1]

Like I said, I look to the historicity of church teachings. None of the church fathers believed the Pope was infallible. Why should I?

No, neither does the Pope.

No, neither is the Pope. The Church is. I’m not so sure the pope is even in the Church.

No, neither are his, only those of the Church are. The Pope is not the Church.

I don’t know better than the Church. You were the one who actually tried to quote scripture to defend papal authority, remember. Well, the church fathers were the ones who defined cannon, looked which gospels were in line with church teachings and which were not. And since they didn’t support papal supremacy (let alone infallibility), I doubt the Church shares your opinion on the verses or that of the self-proclaimed catholic church.

My opinion doesn’t matter, the problem is your presume the Pope to be the Church and thus claim the Church interprets scripture to tell of papal infallibility. Circular reasoning, and of poor historicity.

No quite the contrary. I believe the pope is subject to not just God but the church. The church’s Apostolic Tradition, the churches dogma.

He is only infallible when the Bishops/Church ask him to be infallible.

Otherwise, like orthodoxy you just agree to disagree and reach impasses that hide the truth.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

From the cotent and the context of that statement, I would think it refers to a belief in the article of the creed, which has always been confessed (or at least not rejected) by Catholics and Lutherans. Here is the full paragraph:

Although the documents Church and Justification and Apostolicity of the Church made significant contributions to a number of unresolved issues between Catholics and Lutherans, further ecumenical conversation is still needed on: the relation between the visibility and invisibility of the church, the relation between the universal and local church, the church as sacrament, the necessity of sacramental ordination in the life of the church, and the sacramental character of episcopal consecration. Future discussion must take into account the significant work already done in these and other important documents. This task is so urgent since Catholics and Lutherans have never ceased to confess together the faith in the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”

What it is saying is that since Catholics and Lutherans both profess a belief in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” it is urgent for Lutherans and Catholics to reconcile their disagreements (enumerated partially above) over the nature of that Church.

Thanks for providing the entire paragraph from the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity. And the need for further dialogue on meaning of sacramental nature of the Church. Here’s a quote from the Dialogue on the Apostolicity of the Church:

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.
lutheranupress.org/Books/The-Apostolicity-of-the-Church

I think real progress has been made among Lutherans to accept episcopacy/ apostolic succession as the only form of ecclesia. The Lutheran Confessions point out that ordination could be considered a sacrament.

 

[quickstep]

I think the real question should be regarding the word one, as opposed to Catholic. When this creed was formulated there was indeed one church. There is still one church today, and I would think one should look at historical evidence for which church that is.

Hi Jon,

Actually those councils were ecumenical councils. They were independent
churches with no central authority. Some even used different books
for their bibles. This certainly was the circumstance when Ignatius
coined the term.

My own church is catholic. We recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday.
" I believe in the holy catholic church." This means we are all one church.
We also accept all Christians to our communion to prove our commitment
to this creed.

JohnR

 

[quickstep]

Thanks for providing the entire paragraph from the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity. And the need for further dialogue on meaning of sacramental nature of the Church. Here’s a quote from the Dialogue on the Apostolicity of the Church:

I think real progress has been made among Lutherans to accept episcopacy/ apostolic succession as the only form of ecclesia. The Lutheran Confessions point out that ordination could be considered a sacrament.

evangel,.

My own church recites the Apostles Creed every Sunday.

But I don’t see how accepting ordination as a Sacrament makes any
difference. There was no Christian ordination before the 3rd century
as Christian history books tell us. So it really has nothing to do with any
claim for Apostolic Succession. Actually the term makes little sense
since even Catholic experts say that Peter was never a Bishop of
Rome. So whats the big deal?

Quickstep

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hi Jon,

Actually those councils were ecumenical councils. They were independent
churches with no central authority. Some even used different books
for their bibles. This certainly was the circumstance when Ignatius
coined the term.

My own church is catholic. We recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday.
" I believe in the holy catholic church." This means we are all one church.
We also accept all Christians to our communion to prove our commitment
to this creed.

JohnR

While I respect your point of view, I disagree on the nature of ecumenical councils in the fourth century.

It was not as if a bunch of Protestants and Catholics got together and decided on a creed that could work amongst the relativism of their differing positions.

If that was so Arius would not have been thrown out and his opinions considered equally valid.

Instead the one church settled a matter of faith for the church. Anyone who disagreed was considered outside the church and not Christian such as Arius.

There were many canons settled by many councils over the ages, including the books if the Bible just a few years later at Carthage and again at Trent.

At what point does your church choose to reject these ecumenical councils??

 

[Jon_S_1]

evangel,.

My own church recites the Apostles Creed every Sunday.

But I don’t see how accepting ordination as a Sacrament makes any
difference. There was no Christian ordination before the 3rd century
as Christian history books tell us. So it really has nothing to do with any
claim for Apostolic Succession. Actually the term makes little sense
since even Catholic experts say that Peter was never a Bishop of
Rome. So whats the big deal?

Quickstep

I’m not sure what your citing but it’s erroneous. There was certainly ordination before the third century. We even see it in the Bible. But also first and second century writers.

All Catholic Historians hold Peter as Bishop in Rome.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

evangel,.

My own church recites the Apostles Creed every Sunday.

But I don’t see how accepting ordination as a Sacrament makes any
difference. There was no Christian ordination before the 3rd century
as Christian history books tell us. So it really has nothing to do with any
claim for Apostolic Succession. Actually the term makes little sense
since even Catholic experts say that Peter was never a Bishop of
Rome. So whats the big deal?

Quickstep

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.

 

[Kliska]

Welcome Quickstep. Methodists have bishops.

And are putting more and more emphasis on ordination, and the “mystery” of the sacraments/ordinances, as I can attest to from a recent “discussion” with a Methodist District Superintendent.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

And are putting more and more emphasis on ordination, and the “mystery” of the sacraments/ordinances, as I can attest to from a recent “discussion” with a Methodist District Superintendent.

Thr Methodist Church joined Catholics and Lutherans by signing the Declaration on doctrine of Justification. The ELCA is in full communion with the Methodist Church.

 

[Kliska]

Thr Methodist Church joined Catholics and Lutherans by signing the Declaration on doctrine of Justification. The ELCA is in full communion with the Methodist Church.

Yes, and it’s becoming a strange situation in the protestant world… not bad, just strange. The Methodist denom, it seems, is playing “catch up” with the Lutherans. IMHO, it may be better off if the Methodists want to do that, to be a bit more blatant in some of the things they teach. Right now, it seems they may still be trying to play a middle role between more liturgical churches and non-liturgical.

Regardless, they are scrutinizing the various churches in their denomination to make sure they are tightening up their practices. Once, they recognized valid ordination in Baptist churches, for example, but are now making any non-Methodist ordained ministers be ordained in the Methodist church if they want to preach there and serve communion. Not shocking from the outside, I know, but there have been non-Methodist ministers in several pulpits around here that were suddenly booted from their position because the Methodists have now said they are not properly ordained. It caused quite a stir.

 

[Peter_J]

The time for Lutheran-Catholic dialogue has past,

I’m not denying your right to think that, but it’s sad that you (and various other Catholics I met over the years) don’t follow the lead of our leaders, who obviously believe dialogue is still important.

 

[Casilda]

I have a Lutheran Service Book in front of me. Your assertion is simply untrue. But let’s entertain a “what if;” doesn’t catholic mean Christian?

Our respective communions don’t seem to think so. Never before has the light of reunification gone so bright! We still have a long way to go, but the progress of the past 50 years is incredible given how wide the chasm once was. Also, if there is a single Crypto-Calvinist coming from our seminaries, I’d appreciate if you’d PM me your experiences and names of the pastors. It’s my experience that a majority of our newest pastors are rather staunch supporters of traditional, orthodox Lutheran belief, practice and worship (I’m very pleased to say there is a growing disdain for “praise worship”).

It is true that the LCMS-Lutheran synod has replaced in the creeds the word catholic with Christian. I was told it was because the laity was uncomfortable with it.

www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=954

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

It is true that the LCMS-Lutheran synod has replaced in the creeds the word catholic with Christian. I was told it was because the laity was uncomfortable with it.

www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=954

The funny thing is they left the Athanasian Creed alone.

Whoever
 desires 
to 
be 
saved
must,
 above
 all, 
hold 
the
 catholic
faith.
 Whoever
 does
 not
 keep 
it
 whole
 and 
undefiled
 will
 without
doubt 
perish 
eternally.

I think real progress has been made among Lutherans to accept episcopacy/ apostolic succession as the only form of ecclesia. The Lutheran Confessions point out that ordination could be considered a sacrament.

That is true of the ELCA, but as far as I know, I don’t think it is of the LCMS, which I understand considers presbyterial ordination equally valid to episcopal ordination. Isn’t that the teaching of the Book of Concord?