Question to all Non-Catholic Christians: Did Christ provide any instructions on how the faith should be authoritatively passed on over time?

[JonNC]

So how was he baiting?

By placing an artificial limit on people who might not abide by that limit. He said “non-catholic”. Why would he expect Orthodox Christians to respond in that way?

Point being, those who divide or are divided from the Church, can’t just stay divided, thinking things are OK or will be OK for them .

The Church in Rome is just as guilty of the Schism and later divisions as any other group.

 

[Benadam]

The Church in Rome is just as guilty of the Schism and later divisions as any other group.

I think it more accurate to say the Church in Rome participates in the scandal that resulted in schism but can’t be guilty of schism.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So how was he baiting?

By placing an artificial limit on people who might not abide by that limit. He said “non-catholic”. Why would he expect Orthodox Christians to respond in that way?

Jon,

He said “Non-Catholic Christians” which could include E Orthodox as well as Protestantism of all stripes. Don’t all these Non-Catholics use scripture? Yes. So restricting this answer to scripture alone is the challenge proposed by the opening question.

Point being, scripture shows that those who divide or are divided from the Church, can’t just stay divided, thinking things are OK or will be OK for them .

JonNC:

The Church in Rome is just as guilty of the Schism and later divisions as any other group.

C’mon Jon,

look at all the dividers.

Luther was a hugely flawed individual who was full of errors… He is the Father of Protestantism.
Henry VIII, another hugely flawed individual, who created HIS own church
Calvin, Wesley, Smyth etc etc etc as well started THEIR churches
keep going down the line of 10’s of thousands of sects, to today.

What they did is on THEM. They have to take ownership.
As for ALL the divided from the Catholic Church? We patiently show them the record. That way, once aware of the truth, one THEN can’t claim ignorance of the truth, if that had been a possibility or reality, previously.

Jon,
As an aside

Can you show me where any pope out of 266 from Peter, left the Church and stated his own deal?

 

[JonNC]

I think it more accurate to say the Church in Rome participates in the scandal that resulted in schism but can’t be guilty of schism.

I appreciate this view.

 

[JonNC]

M

He said “Non-Catholic Christians” which could include E Orthodox as well as Protestantism of all stripes. Don’t all these Non-Catholics use scripture? Yes. So restricting this answer to scripture alone is the challenge proposed by the opening question.

Why the limit. Lutherans don’t use it. Anglicans don’t. AFAIK, Methodists don’t. Why set such an unnecessary limit?

Can you show me where any pope out of 266 from Peter, left the Church and stated his own deal?

It could easily be argued that the Bishop of Rome schismed from the rest of patriarchs.

 

[steve-b]

He said “Non-Catholic Christians” which could include E Orthodox as well as Protestantism of all stripes. Don’t all these Non-Catholics use scripture? Yes. So restricting this answer to scripture alone is the challenge proposed by the opening question.

JonNC:

Why the limit. Lutherans don’t use it. Anglicans don’t. AFAIK, Methodists don’t. Why set such an unnecessary limit?

That limit is the requirement of the OP. Therefore that is the challenge .

Can you show me where any pope out of 266 from Peter, left the Church and stated his own deal?

JonNC:

It could easily be argued that the Bishop of Rome schismed from the rest of patriarchs.

The position Jesus gave Peter, was unique, and was shown in a previous post Here

BTW, one of the titles of the pope is “servant of the servants of God”

There is something else required of those he leads, and it is in the definition of the word and understanding of the word used in Lk 22.

emphasis mine

[2233 /hēgéomai = to rule (“an official who leads”) carries important responsibility and hence “casts a heavy vote” (influence) – and hence deserve cooperation by those who are led (Heb 13:7; passive, “to esteem/reckon heavily” the person or influence who is leading).]

IOW others he leads, owe the pope the cooperation, and esteem, for his position

 

[concretecamper1]

If the Bishop of Rome schismed from the Church, it begs the question “why don’t you reject anglicanism and join the orthodox.” After all, anglicanism would be an offshoot of a heretical chuch.

 

[JonNC]

If the Bishop of Rome schismed from the Church, it begs the question “why don’t you reject anglicanism and join the orthodox.” After all, anglicanism would be an offshoot of a heretical chuch.

Because schism is not one way. They are in schism with Rome, too. As an Anglican, I am just as responsible for division as a Catholic is. All of us have an obligation to seek unity.

 

[concretecamper1]

concretecamper1:

If the Bishop of Rome schismed from the Church, it begs the question “why don’t you reject anglicanism and join the orthodox.” After all, anglicanism would be an offshoot of a heretical chuch.

Because schism is not one way. They are in schism with Rome, too. As an Anglican, I am just as responsible for division as a Catholic is. All of us have an obligation to seek unity.

In Schism, there is truth and non-truth or if you prefer right and wrong. BTW…“responsibilty for division” has nothing to do with Truth.

 

[Unnamed]

I mentioned not scripture alone but what Jesus taught only.

 

[Unnamed]

Are there any protestants who want to answer my original question? Please stick to the original topic.

 

[tweedlealice]

Specifically, the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost. Tongues of flame were interposed on their heads. They, joyfully, embraced the moment. Went out and were speaking in tongues. The first testimonies were of Jesus & the crucifixion and RESSURECTION! Testimonies of His miracles, were, also, reported. I feel it’s safe to say after a few months, the one message would continue but other testimonies would have occurred. They would be added to the main ones. “I was blind but,now, I see!”
Feeding His sheep was continuing to tell Jesus’s story. To bring souls to Baptism & Confirmation. Build My Church, Peter! And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME!

Blessings

 

[JonNC]

In Schism, there is truth and non-truth or if you prefer right and wrong. BTW…“responsibilty for division” has nothing to do with Truth.

Are you anymore convinced the Catholic Church is right than an Orthodox Christian is that they are right?
Arguing who is right doesn’t lead to anything other than arguing. Claiming to be right because we are right is triumphalism.
One can be right, and still have responsibility.

 

[steve-b]

concretecamper1:

If the Bishop of Rome schismed from the Church, it begs the question “why don’t you reject anglicanism and join the orthodox.” After all, anglicanism would be an offshoot of a heretical chuch.

Because schism is not one way. They are in schism with Rome, too. As an Anglican, I am just as responsible for division as a Catholic is. All of us have an obligation to seek unity.

In the case you bring up, the EO divided from Peter. With the exception of Judas, no apostle separated from Peter. It’s NOT OK dividing from the plan Jesus established in Peter and those in union with him.

God hates divorce. And you’ve seen the scripture passages that give the terrible consequences for any who go into [division, schism, separate sects etc] from His Church… and reman so and don’t return .

 

[Unnamed]

Question to all Non-Catholic Christians: Did Christ provide any instructions on how the faith should be authoritatively passed on over time? Non-Catholic Religions

Are you anymore convinced the Catholic Church is right than an Orthodox Christian is that they are right? Arguing who is right doesn’t lead to anything other than arguing. Claiming to be right because we are right is triumphalism. One can be right, and still have responsibility.

JonNC I assume that you are an Orthodox Christian? You guys are so close to Catholicism that I really don’t think we should even argue amongst ourselves. My original question was geared more to “Bible Church” folks.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC I assume that you are an Orthodox Christian? You guys are so close to Catholicism that I really don’t think we should even argue amongst ourselves. My original question was geared more to “Bible Church” folks.

I’m not. I’m continuing Anglican.
If your question was geared to a certain group, it is best to specifically imaddress that group. Using the term “non-Catholics” is too vague.

 

[JonNC]

In the case you bring up, the EO divided from Peter. With the exception of Judas, no apostle separated from Peter. It’s NOT OK dividing from the plan Jesus established in Peter and those in union with him.

This assumes, quite falsely, that I am divided from St Peter. Rome does not have an exclusive claim on any of the apostles.
Further, Christ never established the Bishop of Rome with supremacy. Primacy, absolutely.

And you’ve seen the scripture passages that give the terrible consequences for any who go into [division, schism, separate sects etc] from His Church… and reman so and don’t return .

And since we are in schism with each other, it would do us all well to seek unity.

 

[steve-b]

Because schism is not one way. They are in schism with Rome, too. As an Anglican, I am just as responsible for division as a Catholic is. All of us have an obligation to seek unity.

The definition. of schism
“schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

To your last point,
There is a right and wrong direction to go

Anglicans -------> Catholic Church is the correct direction.
Anglicans <------- Catholics is the wrong direction

I’ve given you many times in the past, all the information properly referenced for WHY that is.

 

[JonNC]

The definition. of schism
“schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

That’s a triumphalist made-up definition.

schism
ˈs(k)izəm/Submit
noun
a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.
synonyms: division, split, rift, breach, rupture, break, separation, severance; More
the formal separation of a church into two churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences.

Except that it is all from a Catholic bias.
But thanks, anyway, Steve

 

[justabill]

I like acts 19. When Paul said what were you "baptised"into?
So he layed hands on them and they were baptised in the holy spirit.

And guess their spiritual life was changed.

Or Galatians . who bewitched you. ?
Did you receive the holy spirit by some teaching by those guys.

I have met people who have been baptised in the holy spirit.
And met people who have been bewitched.