Indeed it was. The only valid sacraments were adminstered by those in unity with the bishop, and the only true gospel preached was that which was received from the Apostles.
Actually I think denominations are visible elements taht we are disobedient to His Commandment that we be one, as He and the Father are One.
I would contend that the church triumphant and the church suffering are also people.
Yes!
Hey Jon. I ask this with insane amounts of respect,
in an attempt to understand the idea that the Lutheran church is a continuation of the CC, where the one holy Church is to continue forever, comprised of the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered: If I were to start a church tomorrow (claiming that the gospel is rightly taught there, and the Sacraments are rightly administered there) would that same reasoning apply to my church? I ask because I noticed several churches in my area, in the process of being developed. Can you give an example of a “distinctive Cathlic dogma” that took “centuries to develop”?
But the Catholic Church is not a denomination. To “denominate” literally means to take ones name from another. All Protestant congregations are identified or “named” by which parts and how much of the Catholic faith they reject.
At the time, the Catholic Church was not “Roman” in the way it became so here in the West later. There were also no capital letters or punctuation, or verses and chapters in the Scriptures until the Church added these. Adding a capitol does not change the meaning of the text. The Church founded by Christ has always been Catholic, and Augustine was a member of it. It was the only Church, because the Church is One.
Certainly a case can be made that they are both “rocks”, and even more importantly, Jesus is THE rock.
Nonsense. We profess that creed every Sunday.
OK. Agreed - “Christians of all denominations are the church”. As per the Nicene Creed, written by the RCC: “We believe in one holy
Can you give an example of a “distinctive Cathlic dogma” that took “centuries to develop”?
But the Catholic Church is not a denomination. To “denominate” literally means to take ones name from another. All Protestant congregations are identified or “named” by which parts and how much of the Catholic faith they reject.
At the time, the Catholic Church was not “Roman” in the way it became so here in the West later. There were also no capital letters or punctuation, or verses and chapters in the Scriptures until the Church added these. Adding a capitol does not change the meaning of the text. The Church founded by Christ has always been Catholic, and Augustine was a member of it. It was the only Church, because the Church is One.
Certainly a case can be made that they are both “rocks”, and even more importantly, Jesus is THE rock.
But there are very few occasions when God changed a persons name throughout history, and each time this is done, the person has a new calling, and a new ministry. When Jesus told the Apostles that the devil had demanded to sift them like wheat, he told Peter “but I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith would not fail”. So everyone that wants to get in on the prayer of Jesus better get in with Peter.
Universal, immediate papal jurisdiction over all other bishops, purgatory, indulgences, etc.
It means “to give a name to”. Your church has a name as much as anyone’s. No Protestant denomination I know of is named by which parts of the Roman Catholic faith they reject.
All Christians are part of the catholic church. Some Christians are members of the Roman Catholic Church.
I am. My particular parish is even named after old Peter.
It wasn’t written by the RC. Rome had very little to do with it. It was written in its current form in Constantinople (with a few additions such as the Filioque and true god from true god which were added later by the RCC).
It applies to all Christians. Even the ones who denomination began today, since it is the measure of orthodoxy.
Given the Catholic’s “mischievous smile”, I presume that we are meant to infer that the Catholic is making fun of the Evangelical.Did I miss something…
Not quite. Jesus established the singular, sacred, universal church descending from the Twelve Apostles. Your church and mine are both derivatives of that one, as is every other one which split off at any other point.
I understand. One question: if I started a church tomorrow, established a following, and claimed to impart doctrinal truth and administered the sacraments (the number of sacraments would be up to me) would my church be considered, in your opinion, a derivative of that singular, sacred, universal church descending from the Twelve Apostles, established by Jesus?
The church in Rome and the church in Constantinople, at that specific time, (along with other churches in other places, at that time) comprised the one Catholic Church, at least at that point and time - correct?As you know, I already agreed with this statement. Question: This creed did not apply to any PCs (protestant Churches) when it was drafted, due to the fact that none of them had been started during the process of drafting it - correct?
Very cleverI would contend that the church triumphant and the church suffering are also people.
So it’s ok to dissent?
As you know, I already agreed with this statement. Question: This creed did not apply to any PCs (protestant Churches) when it was drafted, due to the fact that none of them had been started during the process of drafting it - correct?
Sort of. There were already evident east/west divisions in 381. And especially after the barbarian invasions of Rome. Solidified when Byzantium conquered Rome, forced the pope to abdicate, and then appointed popes for the next 250 or so years. During that time, Rome bowed to imperial authority in Constantinople. Not the modicum of unity at all, but disunity, chaos and factionalism and rivalry. Not like the Christian church today.
I don’t understand the question.
Actually that creed is not “Roman”, but more ecumenical than most that came after that time. Nicea was graced with bishops from a truly catholic (universal) origin, and occurred before the East West Schism.
I think this way of wording it fosters confusion. There is only One Church. Various ecclesial communities do not “comprise” it. Those who are in Christ comprise it, and they may be found in a variety of ecclesial communities.
I took the advice of other non-Catholic Christians, making the distinction between CC and cc, as well as using the term Roman Catholic Church as opposed to just saying Catholic Church, against my better judgement, in order to placate… I don’t think I’ll be doing that any more. There is only one Catholic Church!
