I
Isaac14
Guest
Yet you keep replying…
- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
When I am asked when is the first time in history the name Catholic Church is seen in writing, I can give the questioner an answer, and properly referenced.steve-b:
Steve, you clearly have something else in mind when asking this question beyond just having us answer. What will the answer prove to folks reading this thread?
So
Asking the same question to an Orthodox, when is the first time in history does the name Orthodox Church appear in writing, is perfectly reasonable.
And no one answers the question.
So
What It shows is THEY preferred to avoid the question because they can’t answer it, or it is uncomfortable as a result to admit that. .
I don’t avoid the question. A Catholic has no problem with that question.
Think about what you just said
A written reference shows, AFTER the fact of schism, who broke from who.
AND
those who broke away, and remain away, from Peter, and away from those in complete union with Peter, have to own that reality… especially since it goes against Jesus prayer
S
steve-b
Guest
So do you.steve-b:
Yet you keep replying…
L
lanman87
Guest
Well, just so you know. The quote I gave that says Non-Catholic Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.
was Cardinal Avery Dulles, Who Can be Saved blog Post February 2008
No offense, but I trust Cardinal Dulles to accurately reflect Catholic understanding more than I do you (or any other anonymous person on the internet).
I
Isaac14
Guest
I’m a schismatic Orthodox, it would seem to be in our nature to rebel against authority. :crazy_face:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Nice try
Who care @steve-b! Both Churches East and West believe themselves to be uniquely Catholic and Orthodox.
From Britannica:
The word orthodox (“right believing”) has traditionally been used in the Greek-speaking Christian world to designate communities or individuals who preserved the true faith (as defined by those councils), as opposed to those who were declared heretical.
You’re going a little over board on semantics my friend.
ZP
S
steve-b
Guest
As I said previously, and this is truesteve-b:
Well, just so you know. The quote I gave that says Non-Catholic Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.
was Cardinal Avery Dulles, Who Can be Saved blog Post February 2008
No offense, but I trust Cardinal Dulles to accurately reflect Catholic understanding more than I do you (or any other anonymous person on the internet).
Can ≠ Will
AND
This is proper referencing Who Can Be Saved? by Avery Cardinal Dulles | Articles | First Things
Dulles also writes Re: Vat II
God had, however, made the Catholic Church necessary for salvation, and all who were aware of this had a serious obligation to enter the Church in order to be saved. God uses the Catholic Church not only for the redemption of her own members but also as an instrument for the redemption of all. Her witness and prayers, together with the eucharistic sacrifice, have an efficacy that goes out to the whole world.
AND
Dulles finishes his thought at the end of this document by saying
But that same grace ( i.e. for salvation) brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
So
I’ll say again from Vat II and Lumen Gentium, and Dulles won’t disagree
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.
S
steve-b
Guest
Did I ask the unanswerable question for you?steve-b:
Nice try
Who care @steve-b! Both Churches East and West believe themselves to be uniquely Catholic and Orthodox.
From Britannica:
The word orthodox (“right believing”) has traditionally been used in the Greek-speaking Christian world to designate communities or individuals who preserved the true faith (as defined by those councils), as opposed to those who were declared heretical.
You’re going a little over board on semantics my friend.
ZP
I’ll just say
Schism ≠ orthodox “right believing”
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I
Isaac14
Guest
Only if you assume Rome was the “correct” party in the schism. It wasn’t
S
steve-b
Guest
I don’t assume. I showed you the history properly referenced.steve-b:
Only if you assume Rome was the “correct” party in the schism. It wasn’t
This is exactly why you won’t answer the question I asked.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Steve-b. Can you provide maybe something properly referenced for what “knowing” means in this case?
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I answered it, WHO CARES!?!? This is my answer. The East has always seen itself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. As I said above, Augustine uses the word “Orthodox” in his book On True Religion. The term had also been used as early as the 4th century, don’t worry, I’ll reference it when I get home.
ZP
L
lanman87
Guest
I’m aware, I’ve read the document. The point is, he gives non-Catholic Christians the ability to be saved, whereas you do not.
I
Isaac14
Guest
Strictly speaking, Steve is in his less than obvious way saying that non-Catholics who are unaware of the necessity of being Catholic can be saved.
Those of us non-Catholics here in this thread have been thoroughly educated by Steve so we’re out of luck.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Lol, we are right in there with the “nuts”? That would be like the other side referencing those that would say the words mean Real Presence, transubstantiation, or magic… ?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I agree with that statement. For example, if you in your deepest bosom and convictions believe all stuff Catholic to be in perfect harmony with apostles and Holy Spirit, and corroborated by His Spirit to yours, then for sure it would be a sin for you to then turn your back and deny any of it.
Same goes for me. If I turn my back on my deepest convictions that I have had since being born again as a " non Catholic", that would be a sin for me likewise.
In the past this is where you next cite “indifferentism”. I then say we both call out each others errors equally.
Your born again is not my born again.
Your salvation is not my salvation.
Your eucharist is not my eucharist.
Your baptisms are not my baptisms.
Your priesthood is not my priesthood.
Your Tradition is not my tradition.
Your bible is not my bible.
Lol, now where is indifferentism?
But thank you for sharing your warning. You certainly do not have my blood on your hands. Your controlled and steady warnings are recorded for playback at my judgement day. And that goes both ways, for you too are not ignorant of our testimonies…also recorded.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
After you’ve been here on these forums for yrs, I’m surprised you still ask that questionsteve-b:
Steve-b. Can you provide maybe something properly referenced for what “knowing” means in this case?
Going back 2 yrs ago, almost to the day, I said the following to you. For space I provided 3 links to show just a snippet of history Mar 2, 2018 + lots of internal links in those links
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Think about where YOU got your argument as a Protestant … of some stripe. BTW, what church (by name) do you belong to?steve-b:
I agree with that statement. For example, if you in your deepest bosom and convictions believe all stuff Catholic to be in perfect harmony with apostles and Holy Spirit, and corroborated by His Spirit to yours, then for sure it would be a sin for you to then turn your back and deny any of it.
Same goes for me. If I turn my back on my deepest convictions that I have had since being born again as a " non Catholic", that would be a sin for me likewise.
In the past this is where you next cite “indifferentism”. I then say we both call out each others errors equally.
Your born again is not my born again.
Your salvation is not my salvation.
Your eucharist is not my eucharist.
Your baptisms are not my baptisms.
Your priesthood is not my priesthood.
Your Tradition is not my tradition.
Your bible is not my bible.
Lol, now where is indifferentism?
But thank you for sharing your warning. You certainly do not have my blood on your hands. Your controlled and steady warnings are recorded for playback at my judgement day. And that goes both ways, for you too are not ignorant of our testimonies…also recorded.
Last edited:
- Status