That is disingenuous of you. I did not say that part of the Bible was discredited.
It is no secret that many Protestants consider the Catholic Church to be apostate, preaches a false gospel, the pope is the anti-Christ, the Church is the Whore of Babylon, etc. etc. The publications are out there in plain view. That doesn’t mean that all Protestants feel this way, but the publications that state otherwise are multitude.
Correct! This is not an ex cathedra statement, but it is infallible by virtue of the universal ordinary magisterium; i.e., this has always and everywhere been taught throughout the history of the Church.
Vern is either ignorant, deluded, or something worse. The Catholic Church has not discredited the Bible.
I have heard this argument a number of times… that this has nothing to do with salvation, but rather, maturing in a right relationship with God. However, the whole context of the discussion in which James opens this part of the discussion is with the question, “Can such faith save him?” - not “Can such faith justify him?” So actually, it has everything to do with salvation.
But that’s just it. They are not at the table in the first place. Non-Catholic Christians are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and they cannot share in Holy Communion with the Catholic Church. JPII reminded us of this in his encyclical on the Church and the Eucharist. They cannot share with us and we cannot share with them because we are not in reality in full communion with one another. He also stated that Catholics do not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a Protestant service. And this coming from a very ecumenical pope. These are not new teachings, but are reaffirmations and reiterations of what the Church has always taught because of certain teachers and theologians within the Church promoting erroneous and ambiguous views.
That’s an insulting remark!
I believe you misunderstood what Vern wrote. Here is the exchange you are referring to.
(Note: I altered the emphasis to bold because italics does not show up when quoting. The emphasis is the author’s.)
(Emphasis mine.)Not that tired and long-discredited old argument again.
What is wrong with the Catholic Church stating that ‘by our definition of church, we mean apostolic succession, valid priestly ordinations and the Eucharist’ and therefore since Protestants don’t have these, they are not ‘church’ in the proper sense’??? An intellectually honest Protestant should reply, 'okay, if that is your definition of ‘church’, then we are not properly called ‘churches’, but let’s now discuss why we have different definitions for ‘church.’ And the document never said that your husband, or brother-in-law, or sister will rot in hell because they are not Catholic. In fact, the document acknowledged that certain truths are proclaimed in these ecclesial communities and that they can have access to the grace of God. But let’s be intellectually honest here, if you have any conviction as a Catholic and truly believe that we are privileged and advantaged in that we are in the Church Jesus established, that we are privileged and advantaged in that we have access to the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, that we are privileged and advantaged in that we have the fullness of the truth, then by definition, you have to admit that they are somehow disadvantaged.
the gospel to Jews and Gentiles, but forgiveme if I can’t find sufficient information to backup your belief that this proves papal infallibility…it says nothing of the apostles (most directly, Peter) becoming LIKE Christ (as far as teaching imperfectly…my understanding of papal infallibility). Again, Galatians is so important…Paul is warning Peter that he has fallen away from the true Gospel and was allowing Jewish rituals to be practiced in his church.
Please read Galatians 2:11 through 3:25.
Where is your faith when you reject His Apostles?
Hi HJ, thanks for responding. Just to help you out with the Catholic jargon, the reason I capitalized Chair is because of the term ex Cathedra (which I believe translates to from the chair). It doesn’t mean the Pope is literally speaking from a chair but that he is speaking in his full authority as Pope.
**
The POPE is not causing divisions with other denominations. That they have did to themselves in the Reformation.
We all worship together on Sunday at Mass.
My arguement has been but you can’t take communion and his was I can take communion of desire. So stalemate.
I look forward to it.
Read the documents? He should have figured out what 99.9% of people would have been reading the day after! It was all done very poorly. My protestant friends will not be reading the documents. Why on earth did he even feel the need to bring this up. Here’s what my Protestant friends revert to … ‘Martin Luther had a very good point, the church was way out of control then.’ And we were! Rather than emphasising ‘we’re number 1’, we should be repeating, ‘we were out of control back then and we’re sorry we caused you so much pain’. Then, maybe lead into how it is that we have this history but just to lay it out as it was, was nothing short of a giant step back! Yes yes, the documents are more than likely right, correct, we win; however, remember this: 'Your never right unless your psychologically ‘right’. No matter 'how right you are, if you don’t use common sense, you’re way out of control - again. No matter how ‘RIGHT’ you are, if you act like a fool, you’re a fool, no if’s - and’s or but’s. Just to lay out those facts doesn’t address the whole picture of this history and when laying out those ‘facts’ he should have been thinking more about how it all came about and our once but passed, protestant friends. If I hit you (speaking of knee-jerks) are you going to first sit down and say lets see now, what all has happen here? No your not, your going to first feel pain and anger. Well welcome to what we have now.Wow. So even Benedict XVI is President Bush’s fault.
Actually read the documents, please. The links have been posted in this thread. They have nothing to do with whom God loves more. The latest one, which I’ve yet to see the media report accurately, is little more than a extended dictionary entry. It answers a few questions, defines “Church” according to Catholic theology, and then explains the difference between a Church and a non-Church Christian community.
But I suppose jerking knees is easier than actual study.
– Mark L. Chance.
I didn’t see anyone who read what I wrote who thought I was talking about the Bible, and not your argument.
Go back and re-read the thread. Several people have answered you.
And it doesn’t say what you implied;
Your response.
Precisely how does this passage refute the proposition that outside the Church there is no savation? How do you interpret Paul’s words to mean "It’s okay of you don’t have faith?
You would be best served, then, not to use out-of-context pericopes to advance ideas that the original writer did not advance.
Agreed I was just about to post the exact same thing!
Thank you.Agreed I was just about to post the exact same thing!