"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[Jon_S_1]

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:QUOTE]

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 a 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.

JohnR

So you are saying the Council of Nicea had no oversight over the churches???

Then why was Arius condemned as a heretic and all of his followers forbidden from teaching in ANY Christian Church.

Perhaps you have not read the council documents?

There were many councils before Trent. All of them gave orders to the faithful.

Where was the Methodist church in all this? Not invented yet of course!

Please read this on Nicea and then read of the 21 other councils. newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Some examples:

The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members.

Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

 

[Porknpie]

Nor do we!

And I’m content - for by that logic you no longer consider us Protestant.

Ben,

Answer me this, is this statement a Catholic or Protestant viewpoint?

Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken

And if it were true, shouldn’t scripture explicitly say so?

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

Nor do we!

And I’m content - for by that logic you no longer consider us Protestant.

Likewise Ben,

Regarding baptism, this is a Protestant thought is it not?

it is by faith in the gospel alone that men become members of the Christian Church,
I compare that statement to the Catholic Catechism

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church.

PnP

 

[steido01]

Likewise Ben,

Regarding baptism, this is a Protestant thought is it not?

it is by faith in the gospel alone that men become members of the Christian Church,
I compare that statement to the Catholic Catechism

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church.

PnP

Not sure these are necessarily contradictory statements, from a Lutheran perspective, anyway. Baptism, as a sacrament, is the means by which we initially receive God’s Grace - the very Gospel. It is what brings us into the church catholic, as commanded in the Great Commission. From the petitions in the Lutheran Service Book’s Baptismal Rite:

…Grant that _____ be kept safe and secure in the holy ark of the Christian Church,
being separated from the multitude of unbelievers
and serving Your name at all times with a fervent spirit and a joyful hope,
so that, with all believers in Your promise,
______ would be declared worthy of eternal life…

 

[Porknpie]

Not sure these are necessarily contradictory statements, from a Lutheran perspective, anyway. Baptism, as a sacrament, is the means by which we initially receive God’s Grace - the very Gospel. It is what brings us into the church catholic, as commanded in the Great Commission. From the petitions in the Lutheran Service Book’s Baptismal Rite:

Thanks Steido. Agree we become members of the church through baptism. Confusing to a Catholic why it would say through the gospel as they are seemingly contradictory but perhaps there is an explanation where a = b ?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Porknpie, when you say that baptism and the Gospel seem contradictory, you are giving justfication to the old Protestant polemics. Baptism and the Gospel are not in any way contradictory because baptism is for the remission of sins and what else is the Gospel but the promise of that?

 

[Porknpie]

Porknpie, when you say that baptism and the Gospel seem contradictory, you are giving justfication to the old Protestant polemics. Baptism and the Gospel are not in any way contradictory because baptism is for the remission of sins and what else is the Gospel but the promise of that?

Well I wouldn’t want to do that would I?

Here’s what I read in the Catechism below. It’s not that the Gospel is not important. As an adult, the Gospel has been proclaimed and we respond in Faith and in baptism.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

We become members of the Church through baptism, yes? I hadn’t heard someone say we become members of the Church through the Gospel. I understand what they are saying but baptism is the sacrament by which we become members did the Church as Steido said.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73

Thoughts?

 

[Kliska]

I truly believe most denominations see things in a similar way, but we don’t always phrase things the same. If sacraments are external sign of an inward spiritual change or grace, most of us are in agreement with that. We believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that is was is efficacious for salvation; the external sign is water baptism the internal spiritual reality is the Holy Spirit baptism. The water itself doesn’t save, but it signifies what does and we are TOLD (in the case of adults) to have faith and be baptized; the faith must come first, then it is duty vs. mutiny to get baptized or not.

In short, Jesus commanded a particular outward response to inward truth. The action flows from faith and love, just as the way Jimmy Akin describes good works. Just as Paul vs. James chooses to phrase it. Paul emphasized the response of faith, while James assures his audience that good works flow from faith. Abraham faithed and it was accounted for righteousness, he didn’t then sit down and not do as God asked, he evidenced the faith he had.

 

[FrDavid96]

Well I wouldn’t want to do that would I?

Here’s what I read in the Catechism below. It’s not that the Gospel is not important. As an adult, the Gospel has been proclaimed and we respond in Faith and in baptism.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

We become members of the Church through baptism, yes? I hadn’t heard someone say we become members of the Church through the Gospel. I understand what they are saying but baptism is the sacrament by which we become members did the Church as Steido said.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73

Thoughts?

We have to keep this in perspective. The Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is what Martin Luther decided to leave, and took his followers with him.

That one Church both “is” and “subsists in” the present-day Catholic Church, and indeed the Catholic Church throughout all of history (past, present, and future).

By baptism, other Christians (meaning not-catholics) are united to the Church, but remain outside of the visible structure of the Church.

See the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium (A light to the nations)

1. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well I wouldn’t want to do that would I?

Here’s what I read in the Catechism below. It’s not that the Gospel is not important. As an adult, the Gospel has been proclaimed and we respond in Faith and in baptism.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

We become members of the Church through baptism, yes? I hadn’t heard someone say we become members of the Church through the Gospel. I understand what they are saying but baptism is the sacrament by which we become members did the Church as Steido said.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73

Thoughts?

The problem is most Protestants remove Baptism from the gospel, replacing it with altar calls, the sinners prayer, or asking Jesus in your heart. None of those are in the Gospel!

They then say baptism is nice to do if your into that sort of thing but not necessary since you were saved at the altar call.

You couldn’t make this stuff up!

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is most Protestants remove Baptism from the gospel, replacing it with altar calls, the sinners prayer, or asking Jesus in your heart. None of those are in the Gospel!

They then say baptism is nice to do if your into that sort of thing but not necessary since you were saved at the altar call.

You couldn’t make this stuff up!

Just what the devil ordered, sadly.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Well I wouldn’t want to do that would I?

Here’s what I read in the Catechism below. It’s not that the Gospel is not important. As an adult, the Gospel has been proclaimed and we respond in Faith and in baptism.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

We become members of the Church through baptism, yes? I hadn’t heard someone say we become members of the Church through the Gospel. I understand what they are saying but baptism is the sacrament by which we become members did the Church as Steido said.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73

Thoughts?

Wouldn’t you say from the passages you posted say that bapism confers the promises of the Gospel? Lutherans have always been firm on the necessity of baptism for salvation, so I wouldn’t be concerned about the original comment you were responding to. If it helps, Peter says (1 Peter 1:23), “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

 

[EvangelCatholic]

We have to keep this in perspective. The Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is what Martin Luther decided to leave, and took his followers with him.

Curious how you reconcile your statement with the "From Conflict to Communion? [see below quote].

 

[PRmerger]

Curious how you reconcile your statement with the "From Conflict to Communion? [see below quote].

There is no tension between the 2 statements, EC.

Where Lutherans profess what is consonant with the truth given, once for all, to the saints, is where we give them a

Where they have divorced themselves from this truth is where we say you have removed yourself from the visible boundaries of His Body.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Curious how you reconcile your statement with the "From Conflict to Communion? [see below quote].

The quote does not say that they confess a common faith inside of the same Church, but that they confess faith in a common idea (at least in a vague sense) of what the Church is.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The quote does not say that they confess a common faith inside of the same Church, but that they confess faith in a common idea (at least in a vague sense) of what the Church is.

Yes, faith in the same Church and why the Commission can go on to proclaim this:

1. Thus, Lutherans and Catholics are able jointly to conclude, »Therefore
   regarding Scripture and tradition, Lutherans and Catholics are in such
   an extensive agreement that their different emphases do not of them-
   selves require maintaining the present division of the churches. In this
   area, there is unity in reconciled diversity« (ApC 448).82

 

[FrDavid96]

Curious how you reconcile your statement with the "From Conflict to Communion? [see below quote].

It’s actually rather easy.

Catholics have no problem if a joint commission makes the statement
“Catholics and Lutherans have never ceased to confess together the faith
in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”

Because we have to keep in mind that such statements, by their very nature, are intended to be sentences that both sides are able to speak without contradicting their own faiths.

From the Catholic perspective, it means “yes, Lutherans say that they believe in one, holy catholic and apostolic church; however, what they say and the reality of the relationship of Lutheranism to the Church are two different things.”

Saying that Lutherans “believe in…” and saying that they “are full members of…” are 2 different things. Catholics can say the first, but Catholics cannot say the second.

It also has to be put into context.

Here’s the whole paragraph
218. Although the documents Church and Justification and Apostolicity of the
Churchmade 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.«

The document admits that there are indeed differences between Lutherans and Catholics on the meaning of “one holy catholic and apostolic”. Taking the quote out of context makes it appear as if they agree.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, faith in the same Church and why the Commission can go on to proclaim this:

Amen!

And when you confess to all of the truths given to the Church, then you will be home.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, faith in the same Church and why the Commission can go on to proclaim this:

“Do not of themselves, require maintaining the present division of the churches in THIS area”

Unfortunately Lutherans divide from the one church in MANY other areas. Namely church authority.

Otherwise you would be in communion with the Church of Rome like the billion others!

Come on over anytime! We’d love to have you back!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It’s actually rather easy.

Catholics have no problem if a joint commission makes the statement
“Catholics and Lutherans have never ceased to confess together the faith
in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”

Because we have to keep in mind that such statements, by their very nature, are intended to be sentences that both sides are able to speak without contradicting their own faiths.

From the Catholic perspective, it means “yes, Lutherans say that they believe in one, holy catholic and apostolic church; however, what they say and the reality of the relationship of Lutheranism to the Church are two different things.”

Saying that Lutherans “believe in…” and saying that they “are full members of…” are 2 different things. Catholics can say the first, but Catholics cannot say the second.

It also has to be put into context.

Here’s the whole paragraph
218. Although the documents Church and Justification and Apostolicity of the
Churchmade 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.«

The document admits that there are indeed differences between Lutherans and Catholics on the meaning of “one holy catholic and apostolic”. Taking the quote out of context makes it appear as if they agree.

Yes, there are differences but not “church dividing” differences per the Commission on Unity.