Protestants, how can this be possible?

[PRmerger]

As far as the CC gave us the Scriptures…I still don’t like the wording of the phrase (God gave us the Scriptures…it just so happens He used men in this process)…and the double standard it implies. And I consider the apostolic church to be common lineage.

But it is not a terribly big point and not worth the bother of being told that my church is a Brothel and that I have demons.

I am humbled by your admission, NTS.

Would I be correct in saying that if you were in a discussion with a nominal Catholic who has incorrectly presented Catholic teaching, that you would charitably correct this Catholic with what we really believe?

The reason I ask is that I have been humbled by the love for truth that many non-Catholics on this forum have, and I have heard many of them say that they defend the CC (in that they will tell someone, “Yes, the CC did indeed preserve the canon of Scripture for us”) to a uninformed Catholic. I have great respect for Christians who do that–and, maybe I’m wrong, I have that feeling that you’re one of those Christians who would correctly present our doctrines.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Ah yes. The metric of lineage.

But the point remains. If the church of Jesus Christ today consists of one and only one ecclesiastical organization (with the remaining ecclesiastical organizations of lesser status), the metric of lineage does not point to one and only one unique organization.

And that does not even address the question on whether the metric of lineage is the right metric.

And the big question which still is open is whether the church of Jesus Christ today actually exists in one and only one unique organization (with everyone else of inferior status)

The RCC sees the EOC and OOC as still being Catholic.

But when we speak of Church it can be spoke of in two ways, as I understand it. One way is the community here on Earth and the other is the Body of all Christians in Christ both on Earth and in Heaven.

In the latter we can say that all validly baptized Christians that are not in mortal sin are part of the Body of Christ and thus part of theis one Church which we call Catholic. In this way we see the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as all Saints in the Body of Christ both in Heaven and on Earth. In this mystical understanding we see Protestants or other communities as having members that are Catholic or part of the Body of our Lord.

In the sense of a Community we have all the Patriarchs with the patriarch in Rome as the holder of the Keys. All Patriarchs share in the powers of the Keys but the holder of the Keys (the Pope) has a greater authority. We see this in the Early Church Father’s writings which the RCC and EOC and OOC hold dear. In this regards we have a Community that guarantees the teachings of Jesus as entrusted in His church with the Apostles being the first and then those that took their offices. It should be of interst to note that all doctrines can be traced back to the Early Church.

So it is not a matter of “superior” or “inferior” but rather truth. The light shines brightest in the Catholic Church for it is only here that the fullness of Truth can be seen.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As far as the CC gave us the Scriptures…I still don’t like the wording of the phrase (God gave us the Scriptures…it just so happens He used men in this process)…and the double standard it implies. And I consider the apostolic church to be common lineage.

By common lineage, it is quite simple. Let us say that at point in time 1 there exists entity A. Let us say at a later point in time A has divided such that there is entity A’ (which retains the name of A) and entity B. Entity A is a common parent for both A’ and B.

Maybe this is too much object oriented programming to understand in this forum. But anyway, just laws of inheritance.

But it is not a terribly big point and not worth the bother of being told that my church is a Brothel and that I have demons.

But yes, my version of the Bible translates as This is my body…This is my blood. So there you have it.

Common lineage…

Not so. The Church has charisms that certain members have as their role in the Body. In Acts 1 when Matthias was chosen they would have annointed him and laid hands on him which would have given Matthias a charism of the church to be a Priest. In that role Matthias would be able to forgive sins as Jesus provided. In that role he would have been able to consecrate the Eucharistic meal. In this only a man ordained as a priest would such Charisms be present. Of course a Bishop too…

So Apostolic Succession does not only relate to a lineage but also a charism as given by Jesus to His Apostles and from them to those they chose to fill a like office. Igantius in Antioch would have received such charisms as the 3rd Bishop of Antioch.

There is so much here to study…

Also the Early Church would confirm a Churches teaching based on the fact that it was established from an Apostolic lineage.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I am humbled by your admission, NTS.

Would I be correct in saying that if you were in a discussion with a nominal Catholic who has incorrectly presented Catholic teaching, that you would charitably correct this Catholic with what we really believe?

The reason I ask is that I have been humbled by the love for truth that many non-Catholics on this forum have, and I have heard many of them say that they defend the CC (in that they will tell someone, “Yes, the CC did indeed preserve the canon of Scripture for us”) to a uninformed Catholic. I have great respect for Christians who do that–and, maybe I’m wrong, I have that feeling that you’re one of those Christians who would correctly present our doctrines.

I wouldn’t word it quite that way. The way I would word it logically is:
(1) God gave us the Bible
(2) In doing so, God sovereignly chose to use man in this process. He did not choose to plop the Bible down from heaven (although He could have)
(3) The men that God chose to use were a part of the apostolic church.
(4) The Catholics believe that the apostolic church is in fact the Catholic church. The Orthodox believe that the apostolic church is in fact the Orthodox church. As a Protestant, I personally believe that the apostolic church is common to all of us.

 

[NotTooSmart]

The RCC sees the EOC and OOC as still being Catholic.

But when we speak of Church it can be spoke of in two ways, as I understand it. One way is the community here on Earth and the other is the Body of all Christians in Christ both on Earth and in Heaven.

In the latter we can say that all validly baptized Christians that are not in mortal sin are part of the Body of Christ and thus part of theis one Church which we call Catholic. In this way we see the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as all Saints in the Body of Christ both in Heaven and on Earth. In this mystical understanding we see Protestants or other communities as having members that are Catholic or part of the Body of our Lord.

In the sense of a Community we have all the Patriarchs with the patriarch in Rome as the holder of the Keys. All Patriarchs share in the powers of the Keys but the holder of the Keys (the Pope) has a greater authority. We see this in the Early Church Father’s writings which the RCC and EOC and OOC hold dear. In this regards we have a Community that guarantees the teachings of Jesus as entrusted in His church with the Apostles being the first and then those that took their offices. It should be of interst to note that all doctrines can be traced back to the Early Church.

So it is not a matter of “superior” or “inferior” but rather truth. The light shines brightest in the Catholic Church for it is only here that the fullness of Truth can be seen.

This is terribly confusing.

If only the Catholic Church contains the “fulness of Truth” then the remaining churches do not. That is just pure logic. That is a superior → inferior relationship.

 

[PRmerger]

(3) The men that God chose to use were a part of the apostolic church.

Ok. Let’s just take this point. By “apostolic church” do you mean that these men who canonized the Scriptures were appointed through apostolic succession?

If not, then what exactly do you mean by “apostolic church”?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This is terribly confusing.

If only the Catholic Church contains the “fulness of Truth” then the remaining churches do not. That is just pure logic. That is a superior → inferior relationship.

I will accept your Superior/inferior analogy because it is a slightly different view only.

But the Theology is there and it makes sense. One must think differently as Jesus told Peter (“get behind me Satan”). Jesus in John 17 says it so perfectly when He says that He and those the Father chose are not of the world but are in it. When we think spiritually and know this life is as nothing and that it is the eternal life that is the goal then things start to come together. But to do this we must die of this world and be reborn.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Common lineage…

Not so. The Church has charisms that certain members have as their role in the Body. In Acts 1 when Matthias was chosen they would have annointed him and laid hands on him which would have given Matthias a charism of the church to be a Priest. In that role Matthias would be able to forgive sins as Jesus provided. In that role he would have been able to consecrate the Eucharistic meal. In this only a man ordained as a priest would such Charisms be present. Of course a Bishop too…

So Apostolic Succession does not only relate to a lineage but also a charism as given by Jesus to His Apostles and from them to those they chose to fill a like office. Igantius in Antioch would have received such charisms as the 3rd Bishop of Antioch.

There is so much here to study…

Also the Early Church would confirm a Churches teaching based on the fact that it was established from an Apostolic lineage.

Of course you believe this. You are Catholic.

If I were Catholic, I would believe that too. But I am not, and therefore do not have any reason to do so.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Ok. Let’s just take this point. By “apostolic church” do you mean that these men who canonized the Scriptures were appointed through apostolic succession?

If not, then what exactly do you mean by “apostolic church”?

Maybe apostolic is not the best word. Early Christian church close to the time of the apostles is what I meant to convey.

Oh…I have a better example for common history.

John Wesley (a hero of mine) is the one who started the Methodist movement. So in the early 1800s you had one group of early Methodists.

Of course today, the one Methodist movement of John Wesley has given birth to many ecclesiastical organizations. Yet it would be improper for one of these Methodist organizations (say the United Methodist) to take total credit for the early Methodist church and exclude the other organizations, since the early Methodist church is common ancestry to all of the ecclesiastical organizations that exist today.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I wouldn’t word it quite that way. The way I would word it logically is:
(1) God gave us the Bible(2) In doing so, God sovereignly chose to use man in this process. He did not choose to plop the Bible down from heaven (although He could have)
(3) The men that God chose to use were a part of the apostolic church.
(4) The Catholics believe that the apostolic church is in fact the Catholic church. The Orthodox believe that the apostolic church is in fact the Orthodox church. As a Protestant, I personally believe that the apostolic church is common to all of us.

For more than 300 years there was no Bible. There was a collection of letters and/or writings that churches referred to for the Divine Liturgy (Mass). But it was not until after this 300 years that Councils were held to determine which writings to use for the Mass (the Eucharist) and they had over 200 writings to go through.

So how does this first 300 years fit into your understanding of church and lineage?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course you believe this. You are Catholic.

If I were Catholic, I would believe that too. But I am not, and therefore do not have any reason to do so.

I was Catholic before I knew any of that.

What I have presented is what I have learned and then put in my words and which I find makes so much sense that it cannot be denied as a possibility by even the most anti-catholic person without denying reason.

But I accept your rejection and only wish to add to this discussion.

 

[NotTooSmart]

For more than 300 years there was no Bible. There was a collection of letters and/or writings that churches referred to for the Divine Liturgy (Mass). But it was not until after this 300 years that Councils were held to determine which writings to use for the Mass (the Eucharist) and they had over 200 writings to go through.

So how does this first 300 years fit into your understanding of church and lineage?

Yes…that was how it was in the earliest church.

See my analogy with the early Methodist church.

This church is common history to all of us. Just like the early Methodist church is common history to all of its descendents.

Anyway, I gotta run. Got a wedding rehearsal to do soon.

 

[luke1_28]

Yes…that was how it was in the earliest church.

See my analogy with the early Methodist church.

This church is common history to all of us. Just like the early Methodist church is common history to all of its descendents.

Anyway, I gotta run. Got a wedding rehearsal to do soon.

I guess I wonder what you are here for, NTS? As far as I am concerned, you are more than welcome to engage but are you genuinely interested in Catholicism? Has ANYthing clicked with what any of us have said? Or do you think that our Church is so defective, and you being so convicted in your beliefs, that we need you here to save us?

IF you are trying to save us, then I am flattered but you won’t find very many weak links around these parts anyway needing saved - we’re well on our way. I will continue to provide what I know to you in high hopes that perhaps you will see us as not needing saved, but instaed see that just maybe - the Church Christ started 2000 years ago is the one Christ intended and since Christ was perfect then so should be His Church. A splintered Church is imperfect. It’s not logical that Christ wanted a splintered Church.

God bless you - and God bless that wedding!
luke1_28

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe apostolic is not the best word. Early Christian church close to the time of the apostles is what I meant to convey.

So when, in your understanding, did it become Catholic (or Orthodox), with the theology of the Eucharist, priests, liturgy, etc?

 

[jmcrae]

Right. Peter was only Bishop in Rome for a short time until he was martyred there.

Two years or so, yes. It is because he died there that the Bishops of Rome take the Succession to the Papacy, rather than the Bishops of Antioch, since a successor to the Bishopric of Antioch was already in place (who would have been the immediate predecessor of St. Ignatius, I think?), who did not have the succession to the Papacy, since when he left there, Peter was still retaining the office of the Papacy in his own person.

 

[jmcrae]

That seems quite contradicting considering what the Catholic church says regarding Peter.

If the Pope, while carrying in his body the Office of the Papacy, were to become the Bishop of some other Diocese other than Rome, and if he were to die in that other Diocese, then his successor in that Diocese would become the Pope, rather than the Bishop of Rome.

There’s nothing “magical” about Rome - it just happens to be the place where normally the Popes die and pass the Papacy to a successor.

 

[jmcrae]

I have no evidence that Peter and Clement believed themselves incapable of being incorrect.

The rest of the Church obeyed them and believed whatever they taught them. St. Clement was even telling people in the Diocese of Corinth how to behave themselves - surely, he was well out of his jurisdiction as Bishop of Rome in so doing, and yet, they obeyed him without question, almost as if he were the man in charge - even above their own local Bishops.

The people of the Church considered them, at the very least, worthy of obedience.

 

[PJM]

=NotTooSmart;5742609]And so you say.

Oh cool. I thought when you mean Catholic that you meant those in submission to the pope located in Rome.

You must be using the other meaning that is Universal. Cool. I am Catholic too.

Google is your friend:

Yup. Part of the Universal Church

As I am.

Yup…the Universal Church was founded by Jesus Christ. And when I became a Christian, Jesus placed me in His church. Praise be to God almighty.

From your lips to God’s ears dear friend. It would be nice, and it is God’s Will. So how do you reconcile Mt. 16:15-19 and Mt. 28:19-20, withyour position. Oh and then their is this pesky verse: *Luke 11: 28 “But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” [In order “to keep it, the word must be understood.” Thus the Mandate to His Church to teach: [COLOR=“red”]Mt. 28: 16 *“Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the ages.”

And this: Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

No friend, not yet, but we can pray that someday it will be true.

 

[Justy90]

Not a “box” but a “Body”… the Body of Jesus Christ our Lord.

What has been explained and described here surely isn’t the Body of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

What has been explained and described here surely isn’t the Body of Christ.

A “body” is so called because you can see it and touch it. It has tangible existence in the world. You can discern where it is, and where it is not. Like it or not, that means that there are some places where it is not.

Sometimes I think that Protestants mistake the Body of Christ for the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit of Christ can be everywhere (including in places where there is no defined doctrine, or even outright heresy) but not the Body.