W
Wannano
Guest
That must be re-assuring!The word “assures”, here, does not imply “absolute assurance”. As this is still a judgment reserved for God alone.
That must be re-assuring!The word “assures”, here, does not imply “absolute assurance”. As this is still a judgment reserved for God alone.
Are the caveats lifted?@Ianman87
Caveats:
In their baptism, did they intend the same thing the Church intends?
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
Immediately after their Baptism, did they preach against unity with the Catholic Church?
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
Thank God!I will relay the normal experience for those in the tradition I was raised.
Someone shared the gospel with them…
Did you know that your link may give anyone opening a virus? I just got a warning. If that was done on purpose, it sure does away with the idea of Christian love in action. True Christianity is what happens when the rubber meets the road.
We - you and I - are not the One True Faith. It is still true. Individuals may or may not be reliable, but the Faith is.if non Catholics are saved why do we insist on being the One true Faith when belief in such is no longer required?
… Other denominations in the non-Catholic world that claim to be the one and only have the same problem convincing others that the CC has.
Weber, N. (1912). Sect and Sects. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htmAccording to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership.
It is hard to see and believe that the CC in its current form existed in the NT times. I can’t see how the EO’s have any more pedigree than any other branching from the original CC.If the CC didn’t date back to 33 A.D. Then I’d dismiss their claim just like I dismiss the IFB, CoC and LDS’ claims. RCC and EO’s are the only one’s with real pedigree to make such claims.
I meant we as in the Catholic Church. I agree it is still true but unfortunately this truth is no longer required to be believed or emphasized.We - you and I - are not the One True Faith. It is still true. Individuals may or may not be reliable, but the Faith is.
Read the encyclicals of St Pope JP2, which take into account V2,as well as the entirety of Catholic tradition, and genuine Ecumenism.commenter:
I meant we as in the Catholic Church. I agree it is still true but unfortunately this truth is no longer required to be believed or emphasized.We - you and I - are not the One True Faith. It is still true. Individuals may or may not be reliable, but the Faith is.
True sacraments and apostolic succession are the reason. This includes the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, Polish National Catholic Church, and some of the Old Catholics.…
I can’t see how the EO’s have any more pedigree than any other branching from the original CC.
…
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.htmlFOURTH QUESTION
Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
RESPONSE
The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]
“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17]
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]
No.Did you know that your link may give anyone opening a virus?
Hm? I wonder why my system didn’t give a warning? Are you on Windows or Mac? I’m on Mac.I just got a warning.
I just thought it was a funny gif. Is it Christian of you to accuse someone of malintent?If that was done on purpose, it sure does away with the idea of Christian love in action.
You just met it. Did you pass the test?True Christianity is what happens when the rubber meets the road.
I never levelled an accusation at all as I prefaced it with IF.Wannano:
No.Did you know that your link may give anyone opening a virus?
Hm? I wonder why my system didn’t give a warning? Are you on Windows or Mac? I’m on Mac.I just got a warning.
I just thought it was a funny gif. Is it Christian of you to accuse someone of malintent?If that was done on purpose, it sure does away with the idea of Christian love in action.
You just met it. Did you pass the test?True Christianity is what happens when the rubber meets the road.
Did I say that you leveled an accusation? I asked a hypothetical question. So, since neither of us did anything intentional, we can chalk it up to, “no harm no foul.”I never levelled an accusation at all as I prefaced it with IF.
Read Matt. 18 this morning. I am curious how you understand verses 19 and 20.He also put us under the authority of the Church that he established (Matthew 18). That Church still exists, but yes, with developed doctrine that you disagree with.