And obviously, there was less agreement within this “universal” church than the RCC likes to admit. Otherwise the nature of Jesus wouldn’t have been determined by a 60/40 split vote with only a minority of churches represented.
They don’t have a leg to stand on. How many of them at least have a sneaky suspicion they don’t, and yet do not explore why… or how many know they don’t, and choose to remain in the wrong?
Does it matter to you that the nature of Jesus was correctly decreed at this council? Would you rather it had been decided a different way?
No, in reality there is no comparison. The RCC knows what it is doing. There are individual Catholics (who are not very Catholic) who act like Protestants.
You can accept the authority of something, and still have questions remain about it. This is called faith. Do you understand everything about Jesus? And yet you still have faith and follow Him. Same for Catholics…faith in Jesus AND His Church - not faith in mere humans, mind you. Faith that the teaching of faith and morals is proper and tied intimately to Christ’s own teachings, whether fully understood or not. Now, if someone rejects a doctrine of the Church, then yes, perhaps they deny the authority of the Church in that instance, and they do so at their own peril. These people do not fit the definition which I referenced above, which is someone who correctly, without bias, and properly disposed toward the will of God, reading their Bible by themselves, would recognize the authority of, and enjoin themselves to, The Catholic Church. Atleast one of those characteristics is missing in someone who would reject authentic Catholic authority.Your comment makes no sense. If we accept the authority of the church, then we implicitly accept everything immediately without question, or else we don’t really accept the authority of the church.
Interesting theology. So, no effect by 2 or 3, then take him to a bigger group (say 10 or 12?), and it they can’t humiliate him enough, and cause him to listen, then cast him out. If he’s not going to listen to 2 or 3, what difference would a few more make, if they’re all saying the same thing? If none of them have authority that the brother actually recognizes, why bother?
who said that there where churches without bishops? Peter was a bishop, and given the keys to the kingdom on earth. He and the apostles were The Church.
How does it make no sense? Why would the sinful brother respond to public ‘shaming’, but not obvious authority? THAT makes no sense
“Bishop”, that’s where. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
Oh I see. You like “brother Ignatius’ nicely put” words, but only if they are inspired from God, and Biblical? Give me a break. They’re historically confirmed words of a Catholic Bishop, most likely a disciple of John himself.
No it wasn’t, you’re right. Ignatius’ words didn’t “bring” a church denomination. Rather, he intended to identify the only True Church in all of Christendom, from the time of Pentecost. That church happens to carry the same title (Catholic) as the word (catholic) represents.
Yes, indeed.
No worries. It doesn’t. Never has been, never will be. Amen.
Sounds like there are lawyers here. The word would be best used ONLY with regards to the entity He build that is His. Thus is your interpretation, and this is where problems come because it is us humans that will attempt badly to determine who, and we are not God and we are not qualified.I offer Jesus as the one to answer your question.
The word Church is never used in the OT. In fact, its first use comes from His mouth as he says “…I will build My Church…”
The word would be best used ONLY with regards to the entity He build that is His.
Thus NO OTHER “group(s)” which follow and might claim to be Christians can be considered His Church. They only follow Chirst (Christians) within their limits and/or the limits of the man or woman who started their group.
.
Sufficiently demonstrated how?
Only in hopeful imagination of those who seek to discredit what is true, rather than align themselves with what is true.
God has revealed things about Himself, and His will to us. If you listened to those Christ sent, you would know the truth. If you reject those Christ sent, you also reject Christ. Those Christ sent include the Pope and Bishops in union with the Pope. The only Church established by Christ was begun with Peter as visible head Bishop, and now has Peter’s successor as visible head Bishop. The head Bishop acts as Prime Minister for the King, while the King is away seated on His Throne in Heaven. The Prime Minister is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in faith and morals binding on all the faithful. This is how Christ keeps His teachings correct for us on earth (in the Church Militant). There is no other church on earth with this promise or mission from God. Christ’s Body is one, His Church is one.
If this is from hte Bible, could you provide teh chapter and verse please?
There were Apostles in Jerusalem, there were none at Nicea. The conclusions from Nicea seem reasonable, and could be 100% correct, but they were not inspired - they were philosophy. Jesus led the Apostles into all truth in the first century. This statement from Jesus that he would do this is plain as day and anyone who says that truth continues to grow goes directly against what Jesus said.
