The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Think about where YOU got your argument as a Protestant … of some stripe.

Well, i just shared how we are both peculiar to one another, both of some stripe then.

I would say CC is more distinct than any other. Any Christian community should be “peculiar”, but may it be based upon a stripe in particular, even stripes, His.

It is a narrow mindedness born out of self preservation to perceive Protestantism as arising in a vacuum, as something new and of a surprise to a perceived wonderful status quo.

The unbelieving Jews also think they have something on us, for after all, Jesus was a Jew they say. Such smugness doesnt deliver them unto the truth however, and are blind to our circumcised heart, having the essence of the best of Judaism.

“He who saves himself will lose himself.”

BTW, what church (by name) do you belong to?

Did the first ecclessia in Jerusalem have a name we go by today, or Antioch, etc.of any import? I dont think our church has any name of any particular import either…quite generic, if anything associated with Christ can be.

Early on in my walk we were not known by religious elitists as Nazarenes, or of the Way, or Christian, as first churches were, but as 20 th century “Jesus freaks”. Can you imagine that, getting too hung up on Jesus, too overboard.

Think about where YOU got your argument as a Protestant

Precisely.Sadly.Necessary.

 

[MichaelP3]

We are all surprised in various ways on here. And the fact that we are all sometimes surprised shouldn’t surprise anyone if you get my meaning.

Going back to the link you provided you said in the paragraph after the links

" When someone knows about the Catholic Church, as it was said in the paragraph quoted, and then refuses to enter or to remain in it, (the Catholic Church) they could not be saved.”) Those 3 links above, show why that is. NONE of that is my opinion".

I have this question then which I apologise if you think you answered it already so I will try and make it as simple as possible.

If someone who is a non-Catholic gets told:

“The Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, and if you would refuse to enter or to remain in it, you cannot be saved.” (I Know its not the word for word quote but assume someone is informing another).

End of story? They don’t need to think or anything else now, because they have been informed and the case is closed. They “know” now?

 

[lanman87]

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.

You know, I would agree with the statement if the term Catholic was used in the way it was used in the early church, where being catholic meant to be part of the universal church, the body of Christ. If you aren’t part of the body of Christ, the church, the eccelsia, then you can’t be saved.

However, the term catholic has been perverted to mean “Roman Catholic” that is, under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The fact is, the Roman Catholic church is anything but universal.

 

[steve-b]

lanman87:

The point is, he gives non-Catholic Christians the ability to be saved, whereas you do not.

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.

If the links I provide move things along correctly for a person, then good.
I only pass on Church information. If that information educates, then again, GOOD.

My opinions are just that, my opinions. I try and keep them to a minimum. And I will try to always identify what is my opinion.

Since God desires all to be saved AND come to the knowledge of truth 1 Tim 2:4

Meaning God desires everyone to know, He desires everyone to do things His way if they want to be saved.

But He forces NO ONE. to obey HIM, when THEIR choice to do things THEIR way instead.

SO

Then it is safe to say while God gives everyone the necessary grace to come to that knowledge, it doesn’t follow EVERYONE will respond favorably to that grace given. Free will is a powerful gift from God. It’s what makes us culpable for our choices good and bad that we make

Example:

Jesus is the teacher here. WHY didn’t His own disciples stay? WHY did they argue with Jesus to His face and reject Him to His face? Was Jesus a less than perfect teacher? Was Jesus giving them something they couldn’t understand? Was grace not strong enough to get past their resistance? Or Are they just dummies, unable to get simple points?

In this case

Jesus knew in advance before He said a word to THEM, all the information they needed to have, since God short changes no one. Yet Jesus knew in advance THOSE who would leave Him and (those who would stay, the 12 minus Judas). As Jesus said, Those who left didn’t have faith, they didn’t believe Jn 6:64

AND

Notice, in reading on, Jesus let THEM go. He didn’t violate their free will. He didn’t argue with them, He didn’t ask for more chances to explain. One could say He could force them, but God doesn’t force ANYONE against their free will that God gives all humans. It’s what makes us culpable for what we do. So what did Jesus do?

HE LET THEM GO Jn 6:66-68

IMV, that’s one of the scariest scriptures in all of scripture.

 

[Isaac14]

Steve - in the post above why are you misattributing my words to ianman? I said them.

 

[steve-b]

It is a narrow mindedness born out of self preservation to perceive Protestantism as arising in a vacuum,

I’ve printed this many times. It doesn’t attempt to list, every heresy that ever existed. It identifies only the big ones. Great Heresies in history
Do they come from a vacuum? Nope! THEY come from their own particular attempt to spread error. Does any heresy ever go away? Nope

mcq72:

The unbelieving Jews also think they have something on us, for after all, Jesus was a Jew …

The operative words are, the unbelieving.

One could include, the schismatics, heretics, etc … that are there, that Paul in particular, condemned , and in extension those who do that.

BTW, what church (by name) do you belong to?

mcq72:

Did the first ecclessia in Jerusalem have a name we go by today, or Antioch, etc.of any import?

mcq72, what is the name of your church?

BTW

I’ve given this answer many times.

in Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia

Throughout all = Everywhere, the Church is called … wait for it … the Catholic Church

Translation of the Greek:

ἐκκλησία = http://bibleapps.com/greek/1577.htm , ekklesia= church
καθ’ = http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm , kata=according to
ὅλης = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3650.htm , holos= whole, universal
τῆς = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm , ho = the
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

SO

Is there ANYONE in the 1st century who uses Catholic Church, IN WRITING, to describe the Church?

I’ve posted it many times.

St Ignatius, Bp of Antioch, ordained ~68 a.d., direct disciple of St John, uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) . http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm As an aside, where would Ignatius learn to teach that warning and corresponding consequence for one’s soul, for committing and remaining in the sin of schism / division from the Catholic Church? Paul condemned division / dissension / schism from the Church in Romans 16:17-20 Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16 , Galatians 5:19-21 Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16 and that came from Jesus who condemns division John 17:20-23 Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17 , and since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16 no one can say the HS inspired THEM to divide, or inspired all the divisions we see today in Christianity.

There is no expiration date to that nor to those who do it and keep it going.

 

[Isaac14]

BTW

I’ve given this answer many times.

in Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia

Throughout all = Everywhere, the Church is called … wait for it … the Catholic Church

Translation of the Greek:

ἐκκλησία = Strong's Greek: 1577. ἐκκλησία (ekklésia) -- an assembly, a (religious) congregation , ekklesia= church
καθ’ = http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm , kata=according to
ὅλης = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3650.htm , holos= whole, universal
τῆς = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm , ho = the
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

SO

Is there ANYONE in the 1st century who uses Catholic Church, IN WRITING, to describe the Church ?

Your assertion here, repeated many times and in many threads, has never sat well with me. I finally pulled out my Bible to see the context behind your reference to Acts 9:31. This verse refers to the peace experienced by the church throughout Judea, Galilee & Samaria upon realizing that Paul had truly converted and would persecute them no longer.

I understand the words used, that you reference, are indeed the root of the word “catholic” but it seems a terrible stretch to imagine that these adjectives used to describe where the church was in that verse are actually a proper noun to name the church. Do you have a properly referenced source to back up this assertion?

 

[steve-b]

[snip for space]

If someone who is a non-Catholic gets told:

“The Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, and if you would refuse to enter or to remain in it, you cannot be saved.” (I Know its not the word for word quote but assume someone is informing another).

End of story? They don’t need to think or anything else now, because they have been informed and the case is closed. They “know” now?

Short answer, from scripture to answer the question Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation

this same word for Division / dissension διχοστασίαι , From the Church, … is used in →
Romans 16:17-20 AND , Galatians 5:19-21

The consequences for that sin of division from the Catholic Church? [Gal 5:21]

“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ IOW if one dies in that sin they go to hell

IOW

THAT is where that teaching "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvtion comes from. It is from scripture.

Where does the text say the Church = the "Catholic Church"?

see my previous post HERE for other links making the point about the "Church" = "Catholic Church".

In addition I ask,

How many times
does one have to read that teaching from scripture, or hear that teaching from scriture, knowing where it comes from scripture, and who said it, before it is a believable and authoritative teaching to absolutely follow, or else the consequences befalls THEM who don’t obey it?

How many times?

Also

since scripture is inspired by the HS who inspires Paul to teach what was quoted

Which means those quotes ultimately came from Jesus since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15

who absolutely does NOT approve of division in His Church

How so one might ask?

From: John 17:20-23,

THERERFORE in conclusion,

NO ONE THEN, can legitimately claim, that the HS inspired THEM to divide, or remain in division …True?

because

Jesus said clearly, He doesn’t want Division from, He wants perfect unity in HIS Catholic Church . Therefore the HS influences and inspires the same.

 

[MichaelP3]

Thanks for the reply steve-b but you haven’t posted anything you haven’t posted before which is what my question was based on.

So maybe let me condense it even more. In which catagory are everyone who are non-Catholic and have just read your post? They read it and they have been told now. Whether they are allowed to think about it you haven’t responded to so Ill wager whether they think about it is irrelivant then.

So many people read your posts and are not Catholic. They have the knowledge of what you posted. What now?

 

[steve-b]

Your assertion here, repeated many times and in many threads, has never sat well with me. I finally pulled out my Bible to see the context behind your reference to Acts 9:31. This verse refers to the peace experienced by the church throughout Judea, Galilee & Samaria upon realizing that Paul had truly converted and would persecute them no longer.

I understand the words used, that you reference, are indeed the root of the word “catholic” but it seems a terrible stretch to imagine that these adjectives used to describe where the church was in that verse are actually a proper noun to name the church. Do you have a properly referenced source to back up this assertion?

The answer is in, the part of my post that you cut out that had the links to the answer.

AND might I add, open the links.

“St Ignatius, Bp of Antioch, ordained ~68 a.d., direct disciple of St John, uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) . http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm As an aside, where would Ignatius learn to teach that warning and corresponding consequence for one’s soul, for committing and remaining in the sin of schism / division from the Catholic Church? Paul condemned division / dissension / schism from the Church in Romans 16:17-20 Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16 , Galatians 5:19-21 Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16 and that came from Jesus who condemns division John 17:20-23 Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17 , and since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16 no one can say the HS inspired THEM to divide, or inspired all the divisions we see today in Christianity.”

I’ll just add,

Ignatius being ordained Bishop ~68 a.d. by the apostles, he was a direct disciple of the apostle John, who himself didn’t die till ~100 a.d. That means Ignatius was a disciple of John for at least 32 yrs as bishop, and that also means Ignatius also knew John for even longer before being ordained bishop.

It is safe to say then

What Ignatius wrote about in his letters, he learned from the teaching of John AND the other apostles, but particularly from John who he was a direct disciple of.

 

[Isaac14]

The answer is in, the part of my post that you cut out that had the links to the answer.

AND might I add, open the links.

I fell for your joke and opened some of the link. The new advent pages include the term “catholic” in the body of the text exactly once. And it doesn’t define whether “catholic” is used as an adjective or proper noun.

I’m left to ask, again, for a properly referenced source that objectively defines when “catholic” is used as an adjective vs. as a proper noun.

edit: forum software attributed the quoted words to myself rather than steve

 

[steve-b]

Thanks for the reply steve-b but you haven’t posted anything you haven’t posted before which is what my question was based on.

So maybe let me condense it even more. In which catagory are everyone who are non-Catholic and have just read your post? They read it and they have been told now. Whether they are allowed to think about it you haven’t responded to so Ill wager whether they think about it is irrelivant then.

Well, Michael

It looks like 8.3k people have read this thread so far. I have no idea, outside of who I directly discuss this subject with, what others might think of the points being made here.

All I can say is,

My quotes (links) are from scripture, the Church, the ECF’s, other Catholic sources etc…

So

I ask, in return

When scripture is quoted

how many times does one have to be shown scripture, or read scripture, before one believes it?

Then

How long if ever, does it take for one to THEN obey what they read?

MichaelP3:

So many people read your posts and are not Catholic. They have the knowledge of what you posted. What now?

Well,

Just like anything else, That’s completely up to THEM correct?

Let’s broaden the point shall we?

Jesus, the one who judges everybody, looking forward in time, already answered your question. Let’s face it, He knew before anything that is , came into existence, that you and I would be having this Q/A.discussion on this day, 3/4/20 … right?

AND

2000 yrs ago, Jesus answering a similar question, answered

Jesus said few are saved

So that tells me, how disengaged the majority of humanity was, is, and will be

 

[steve-b]

Isaac14:

The answer is in, the part of my post that you cut out that had the links to the answer.

AND might I add, open the links.

I fell for your joke and opened some of the link. The new advent pages include the term “catholic” in the body of the text exactly once. And it doesn’t define whether “catholic” is used as an adjective or proper noun.

I’m left to ask, again, for a properly referenced source that objectively defines when “catholic” is used as an adjective vs. as a proper noun.

edit: forum software attributed the quoted words to myself rather than steve

Let’s start out with

Show me where in the text (properly referenced) that you’re referring to, that Catholic is an adjective not a noun.

 

[Isaac14]

Let’s start out with

Show me where in the text (properly referenced) that you’re referring to, that Catholic is an adjective not a noun.

You quoted the Bible (Acts 9:31) and St. Ignatius. Only once in those was the term “catholic” used.

I’ve already asked you how you make the leap from “throughout Judea, Galilee, & Samaria” to mean the Catholic Church (as in the church body headquartered in Rome). You didn’t answer but instead pointed me to two works from St. Ignatius that only once used the term “catholic.” The context was to say that where the people are gathered around their bishop, there is the catholic (i.e. entire) church. No more no less. Is this quote instead a reference to the church headquartered in Rome?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Let’s start out with

Show me where in the text (properly referenced) that you’re referring to, that Catholic is an adjective not a noun.

You quoted the Bible (Acts 9:31) and St. Ignatius. Only once in those was the term “catholic” used.

I’ve already asked you how you make the leap from “throughout Judea, Galilee, & Samaria” to mean the Catholic Church (as in the church body headquartered in Rome). You didn’t answer but instead pointed me to two works from St. Ignatius that only once used the term “catholic.” The context was to say that where the people are gathered around their bishop, there is the catholic (i.e. entire) church. No more no less. Is this quote instead a reference to the church headquartered in Rome?

The point I was to show was the name Catholic Church. So I did that.

Later in time, various heretics of the day, started arguing over where is the primacy of authority.

So

Irenaeus answers THAT

Bp Irenaeus was from the same city as Bp Polcarp … from Smyrna. Bp Polycarp and Bp Ignatius were both direct disciples of John the apostle. Bp Irenaeus was taught by Bp Polycarp. Making Bp Irenaeus 1 man away from an apostle.

Irenaeus writes

"Against Heresies" Bk 3 ch 3, vv1-3

Points Irenaeus makes

1. apostolic succession,
2. He names 12 bishops by name down to his day, in succession of Peter in Rome
3. The Church of Rome has preeminent authority and he says THAT comes from Peter & Paul

Just a few key points he makes. Be sure and open the link

BTW Irenaeus, is a Catholic Bishop

Against Heresies Bk 1 ch 10 v3

 

[Isaac14]

The point I was to show was the name Catholic Church . So I did that.

Acts 9:31 shows absolutely no such thing. Nor does your reference to St. Ignatius.

 

[Isaac14]

To clarify, Acts 9:31 makes no statement regarding the church in Rome.

Nothing you have provided, Steve, proves whether or not St. Ignatius used the term “catholic” as an adjective to indicate the whole church or as a proper noun to indicate the church organization headquartered in Rome.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The point I was to show was the name Catholic Church . So I did that.

Acts 9:31 shows absolutely no such thing. Nor does your reference to St. Ignatius.

Because YOU say so?

Try opening the links

 

[Isaac14]

Because YOU say so?

Try opening the links

I’ve opened the links numerous times. Do you assume I haven’t because I don’t agree with your opinion?

How does Acts 9:31 count as a reference to the Catholic Church (as in the church headquartered in Rome)?

Does the St. Ignatius reference describe the entire church as being fully gathered around an individual bishop or does it describe the Catholic Church commonly understood as being that which is headquartered in Rome?

 

[steve-b]

To clarify, Acts 9:31 makes no statement regarding the church in Rome.

So what?

Paul in his letter to the Church of Rome, says THIS

BTW Paul is writing to the Church of Rome, NOT pagan Rome the city, who is trying to destroy the Church

Rom 1:
7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.[c]
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.[d] 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine…

It is also, Peter’s see.

Isaac14:

Nothing you have provided, Steve, proves whether or not St. Ignatius used the term “catholic” as an adjective to indicate the whole church or as a proper noun to indicate the church organization headquartered in Rome.

You’re flailing …,. badly

Open the links provided AND read them