The Universal Church

[steve-b]

And in that quote, it says “men of both sides were to blame” further emphasizing it is schism within and not from.

You’re not seeing 2 realities here

1. People who first went into schism, or currently go into schism, are guilty of schism.
2. While those born into schism aren’t guilty of actual schism they committed.

UNTIL However

1. When someone born into schism is shown the actual state they are in, namely they NOW have knowledge of the truth, THEN they need to end that state of schism or if they don’t change, THEN they become guilty of schism.

The Church makes a very simple statement in council

“Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches … Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

Jesus only established one Church with Peter as the head apostle ergo head of the Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

His statement was
So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.

@steve-b - your response here is beyond the pale. Let me clearly make a few points and ask you some very direct questions:

• You have falsely accused me of attributing a statement to you that I clearly did not. You have not apologized for, much less even acknowledged, your false accusation. Do you think it is acceptable to bear false witness against another?

Stop with the nonsense.

The statement in question So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ”

That is what YOU said to meHERE

Then you made it look like I said that to you which I didn’t HERE

The only deflection going on here is from you

I have to say, your argument falls apart, given Orthodoxy is in massive schism itself, and the Russians with respect to Constantinople

 

[Isaac14]

Stop with the nonsense.

The statement in question So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ”

That is what YOU said to meHERE

Then you made it look like I said that to you which I didn’t HERE

The only deflection going on here is from you

I have to say, your argument falls apart, given Orthodoxy is in massive schism itself, and the Russians with respect to Constantinople

Steve - I apologize. I had not realized the forum software mistakenly attributed my statement to you, though even the post you reference for my mistake, I indicated I stood behind those words. Again, I apologize.

I have to say, your argument falls apart, given Orthodoxy is in massive schism itself, and the Russians with respect to Constantinople

Other readers can judge whether my statements stand or fall apart. As for me, I stand by my contention that the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Orthodox Church is not determined by disputes internal to the Orthodox Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Stop with the nonsense.

The statement in question So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy. ”

That is what YOU said to meHERE

Then you made it look like I said that to you which I didn’t HERE

The only deflection going on here is from you

I have to say, your argument falls apart, given Orthodoxy is in massive schism itself, and the Russians with respect to Constantinople

Steve - I apologize. I had not realized the forum software mistakenly attributed my statement to you, though even the post you reference for my mistake, I indicated I stood behind those words. Again, I apologize.

Glad we put that behind us.

Apology accepted

I have to say, your argument falls apart, given Orthodoxy is in massive schism itself, and the Russians with respect to Constantinople

Isaac14:

Other readers can judge whether my statements stand or fall apart. As for me, I stand by my contention that the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Orthodox Church is not determined by disputes internal to the Orthodox Church.

As to that point, I’ll just say,

I’ve connected in a previous post, to MichaelP3, several issues in my response that addresses your point.

the Russian Orthodox, who make up ~70% of Orthodoxy, is in schism from Constantinople. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople .

So Orthodoxy does have internal problems

AND I also said

Back in 2002, Cardinal Kasper, then head of ecumenical dialogues for the CC, made this assessment about the Orthodox.

Kasper said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
From https://zenit.org/articles/the-crisi...rdinal-kasper/

Given the dynamic described,

1. NO ONE speaks for Orthodoxy
2. Autocephalous status of Orthodox Churches means an agreement needs to be made individually

Ya have to admit, a daunting task, THEN add to that, schism that is currently going on within Orthodoxy

 

[Isaac14]

As to that point, I’ll just say,

I’ve connected in a previous post, to MichaelP3, several issues in my response that addresses your point.

I’m certainly not going to deny that the temporary break in communion with Constantinople by Russia isn’t a significant issue, but a few things should be noted. This break is one way, not the other. No other church in communion with both Russia and Constantinople have taken this up, meaning that Russia is still in indirect communion with Constantinople. For there to be schism, Russia must separate itself from ALL churches which it has not done.

Regardless of the above, these current issues within Orthodoxy have no bearing on the application of Canon 844 or the USCCB statement.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Since you’re still living, neither myself nor @steve-b know your eternal status. On Judgement Day, everyone will know everyone else’s eternal status. You’ll know mine, I’ll know yours and we’ll both know everyone else’s.

Btw, is it Cheesefare Sunday aka Forgiveness Sunday on the Julian calendar tomorrow?

 

[mcq72]

If that is your answer then throw away the entire NT. THAT was then this are NOW. Is THAT your answer?

Nope, just the Rome rules forever thing.

Just because i disagree with your Pauline explanation doesn’t mean I throw out any future application of NT (you really ask this?) . The fact is many just have a different Pauline explanation than yours (CC).

It couldn’t be clearer.

1. The apostles are to be perfectly one with Peter as the head, just as Jesus established
2. The Church is to be perfectly one behind that plan as well
3. ZERO division, PERFECT unity, like Jesus and the Father

Correct. Now as to any successors…that plan is the development, even invention, to use your word, of later bishops of Rome, even causing division, or schism as you like to say.

You obviously don’t agree with the meaning of Jesus giving Peter the keys… You obviously don’t agree with Jesus telling Peter in singular tense, to “ ποίμαινε’my sheep" … byproduct of the Keys Peter will get from Jesus

Correct, not as came to be interpreted by CC, or rather later bishops of Rome and their supporters.

 

[mcq72]

Since you’re still living, neither myself nor @steve-b know your eternal status.

So a believer is not seated in heavenly places now?

Hope is a very powerful word , and like faith, needs its evidences, which sometimes is what comes out of our mouth, by the word of our testimony.

The early church was on fire for the Lord. Many sacrificed their lives, or were beaten and derided. I don’t think they would say they didn’t know their eternal status as such. They were not theologically anemic yet perhaps.

Just saying, the way you put seems to belie our hope in Jesus Christ to save us, or His spirit in us testifying that we are His, putting a fire in our hearts. After all then, does not faith apprehend the substance of salvation now? Are we not to profess something different than non believers, who also profess a not knowing ?

Don’t really wish to get into theology, but understand the tenses of salvation, and need for endurance to the end, and free will etc., but for sure we can speak of the present, which is what we have for sure right now.

 

[Isaac14]

Since you’re still living, neither myself nor @steve-b know your eternal status. On Judgement Day, everyone will know everyone else’s eternal status. You’ll know mine, I’ll know yours and we’ll both know everyone else’s.

I understand what you’re saying and agree fully. The reason I was pressing on that is Steve’s assertion that the Orthodox are in mortal sin due to schism, and he states we answer for our choices. My choice is to remain Orthodox. He was very clear in implying what the consequence of that is.

Btw, is it Cheesefare Sunday aka Forgiveness Sunday on the Julian calendar tomorrow?

It’s Cheesefare in all Orthodox Churches tomorrow - not just those on the Julian.

 

[ziapueblo]

The CC can say what it wants about itself. The Orthodox Church is the Church, which, by the way, referenced from Roman Catholic documents, has valid sacraments and the right to govern itself (which would make our sacraments is the eyes of the CC, licit). If you choose to ignore it, that’s your decision.

Interesting that the CC would allow its member, albeit in extreme circumstances (although I know many well informed Greek Catholics, clergy and laity, who commune in each other’s Churches), to receive the sacraments in our Churches.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If that is your answer then throw away the entire NT. THAT was then this are NOW. Is THAT your answer?

Nope, just the Rome rules forever thing.

where Peter is, there is the Church (Ambrose of Milan)

Peter is buried under the altar at the Vatican, AND The Vatican is where Peter’s successor is. Both are in Rome. And since that connection of Peter and his successors the popes, are till the end of time, by Jesus own design, then you figure out the rest

mcq72:

Just because i disagree with your Pauline explanation doesn’t mean I throw out any future application of NT (you really ask this?) . The fact is many just have a different Pauline explanation than yours (CC).

And what do THEY have in common? Division from the Catholic Church

It couldn’t be clearer.

1. The apostles are to be perfectly one with Peter as the head, just as Jesus established
2. The Church is to be perfectly one behind that plan as well
3. ZERO division, PERFECT unity, like Jesus and the Father

mcq72:

Correct. Now as to any successors…that plan is the development, even invention, to use your word, of later bishops of Rome, even causing division, or schism as you like to say.

Nope

No invention. Bp Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle, and he gave the successors to Peter in Rome down to his day. I’ve posted it many times

You obviously don’t agree with the meaning of Jesus giving Peter the keys… You obviously don’t agree with Jesus telling Peter in singular tense, to “ ποίμαινε’my sheep" … byproduct of the Keys Peter will get from Jesus

mcq72:

Correct, not as came to be interpreted by CC, or rather later bishops of Rome and their supporters.

Don’t forget, the Catholic Church was THERE from the beginning. What you follow didn’t come into being till 1500 yrs later.

 

[mcq72]

And what do THEY have in common? Division from the Catholic Church

Yes, and many other things, but that seems to be your primary concern, and a stumbling block then, keeping you in schism from us.

No invention. Bp Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle, and he gave the successors to Peter in Rome down to his day. I’ve posted it many times

Dont forget Paul, as those in Rome succeding from him also. Iranaeus didn’t.

Don’t forget, the Catholic Church was THERE from the beginning. What you follow didn’t come into being till 1500 yrs later.

That we came with such a thought 1500 years later is false , as is your thought that it was from the beginnng, otherwise “development” would never be mentioned by any historian.

 

[MichaelP3]

That we came with such a thought 1500 years later is false , as is your thought that it was from the beginnng, otherwise “development” would never be mentioned by any historian.

Until Steve-b comes to a realization of this point, as well as what “KNOWING that the Catholic Church is correct and required for salvation” means and also that anyone who reply to him is “not just simply describing themselves” he will keep talking past anyone he is trying to respond to and not be taken seriously.

 

[lanman87]

My original question is actually a very important question. Scripturally, the indwelling Holy Spirit is the seal/mark of a believer, of a member of the eclessia (church). There are several passages that show this to be true.

You could start in Acts where the household of Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and Spiritual gifts as a sign that gentiles are also called by God and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Cornelius became part of the church when he was Baptized by the Holy Spirit.

Then in Romans we once again see the indwelling Holy Spirit as being a mark of being part of the church. Romans 8:11 says If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. and Romans 8::14 says For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

In 1 Corinthians Paul tells us that …no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. 12:3

Ephesians 1:13 says In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
The word seal mean stamp or mark. The Holy Spirit is the stamp of ownership, if you will, that we belong to God.

So when the Catechism of the Catholic Church says “Furthermore**, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. "Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation,*

It puts Traditionalist Catholics and folks like Steve in a pickle. Because if Christ Spirit is found in these other "communities’ it, in fact, means these other communities are part of the ecclesia/church. Because the mark of an individual being part of the church is to be filled and led by the Holy Spirit. It shows that they are called, accepted, and used by God.

Folks like Steve have two options, they can say that the Catechism is wrong and these “other communities” don’t have the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit isn’t using these “communities” as a means of salvation. Or they can agree with the Catechism, at which point they have to completely cast aside the scriptures that show that being filled, gifted and led by the Holy Spirit is the mark of "a child of God’ and comes with all the benefits that comes from being Spirit filled.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Because if Christ Spirit is found in these other "communities’ it, in fact, means these other communities are part of the ecclesia/church

Not necessarily.

 

[lanman87]

Not necessarily.

How can you be filled with the Spirit and not be part of the ecclesia? I’ve shown (according to the Scriptures) that the presence of the Spirit is the seal of God.

 

[ziapueblo]

Christ is in our midst!

This might help answer your questions (as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned):

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.pdf

God bless and blessed Fast!

ZP

 

[mcq72]

How can you be filled with the Spirit and not be part of the ecclesia? I’ve shown (according to the Scriptures) that the presence of the Spirit is the seal of God.

Well I suspect this is where the theological " lawyers" come in. Something about the legal term of church and community, you know like they had such distinction in Acts…not.

As the one pope said, if you have salvation in an actual outside church,(instead of communities), the whole structure of CC crumbles.

Ironic that the struggle to be a certain kind of one leads to so much division, where traditional and earliest understanding of ecclesia is commandeered and adapted to that end, in my opinion.

 

[lanman87]

Thanks for that. It is a beautifully written statement by Pope John Paul II.

The telling paragraph for me is

In section 11

To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of acertain, though imperfect communion. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church “recognizes that in many ways she is linked” with these Communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit.

and this, which is in section 12.

Likewise, we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also he gives his gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with his sanctifying power. Some indeed he has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd.

and then in Section 15

Thanks to ecumenism, our contemplation of “the mighty works of God” (mirabilia Dei) has been enriched by new horizons, for which the Triune God calls us to give thanks: the knowledge that the Spirit is at work in other Christian Communities, the discovery of examples of holiness, the experience of the immense riches present in the communion of saints, and contact with unexpected dimensions of Christian commitment.

I find it telling that Pope John Paul II so easily admitted that the Holy Spirit is at work in Non-Catholic communities and, for whatever reason, Steve refused to say “yes or no” when I asked him that question.

The saying, “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” should be “Where Christ is, by the power of the Holy Spirit, there is the Church”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And what do THEY have in common? Division from the Catholic Church

Yes, and many other things, but that seems to be your primary concern, and a stumbling block then, keeping you in schism from us.

said simply

YOU aren’t the Church.

AND

The father of the Protestant revolt, is the heretic Luther…NOT Jesus

Therefore, all the 10’s of thousands of divisions FROM Our Lord’s Church, example Protestantism, regardless of stripe, they look back to that revolt and what transpired from it as THEIR beginning.

No invention. Bp Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle, and he gave the successors to Peter in Rome down to his day. I’ve posted it many times

mcq72:

Dont forget Paul, as those in Rome succeding from him also. Iranaeus didn’t.

I’m NOT making Rome the city, the main point. I’m referring to the Church of Rome that has it’s position because it is the see and last see of Peter. Just saying Rome as a Catholic, is a short cut for equating the see of Peter.

Don’t forget, the Catholic Church was THERE from the beginning. What you follow didn’t come into being till 1500 yrs later.

mcq72:

That we came with such a thought 1500 years later is false , as is your thought that it was from the beginnng, otherwise “development” would never be mentioned by any historian.

Protestantism came about in the 16th century. It is just one of many previous Heresies in History and heresies just don’t go away on this side of eternity.

AND

Because Heresies Don’t completely go away, they morph into what they will do. But they are still heresies and therefore condemned by scripture and Tradition.

Problem is

People don’t fear God, NOR do they fear Hell