The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In reality, I don’t know any Protestants who would go with you to the Catholic Church for biblical instruction to settle a disagreement, just as I don’t know any Catholics who would agree to go to a Protestant pastor for the same purpose. Not saying it doesn’t ever happen, but I’ve never witnessed it ever personally.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
American Evangelicalism defines the universal church as every person who has genuinely been born again by the Spirit and is "In Christ and Christ in them". The church is visible and located whenever they gather together in His name. Be it in the First Baptist Church in a small southern town or in an underground house church in China.
Click to expand...
40.png
mcq72:
In my opinion, the Catholic Church must show itself as the institution to which all others owe salvation to, as in unity to her, derived from her. Without her a soul probably wont make it, unless by ignorance. Yet the Church piously says it leaves it in God’s hands. The only non ambiguity is the sureness of the institution and her necesary sacraments.

So she keeps her motto, that despite spiritual life in other churches, there is no salvation outside of her. She is not only shepherd for Catholic souls but asserts herself over all Christ professing souls…in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Re:the points
  1. "in Christ" and "Christ in them".
  2. "institution & necessary sacraments of the Church
Just a few thoughts

When we talk about abiding in Jesus and Jesus abiding in us, How does Jesus specifically qualify the condition for THAT to happen scripturally?

He begins with

“Truly Truly I say to you, UNLESS you…”

HERE

IOW

Jesus makes this a "do this or else" condition … right?

OK…so what specifically is one to DO?

Receive Jesus real presence, body and blood, in the Eucharist.

AND

If one doesn’t partake, what then? Then, As Jesus said, one has no life in them, so abiding in either direction, doesn’t occur either…right?

BTW, for clarification,

A valid Eucharist is required for this condition Jesus describes, to happen. So, validity only happens, by a validly ordained priest in apostolic succession. How does that validity happen? From the last Supper when Jesus ordained His apostles to do exactly what He did in the Last Supper (Lk 22…). "do this…….ποιεῖτε
note: the link gives the definition of what power Jesus ordained them (His apostles) to do

And in extension, when the apostles ordained priests and bishops, they passed on this authority to them, and then they ordain validly, and on it goes in apostolic succession…

ANDin extension

as long as a person remains in the state of grace, (i.e. no mortal sin on their soul) then abiding, both directions, continues.

AND

When / if, one falls out of grace, due to mortal sin, and abiding stops, that sanctifying grace can be restored, as can abiding in both directions, by what Jesus instituted, in the sacrament of reconciliation. HERE, and again, only a validly ordained priest in apostolic succession can perform this sacrament.

Anyway,

Just a few thoughts
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
He begins with

“ Truly Truly I say to you, UNLESS you… ”

HERE
Click to expand...
Steve, I find it really sad that the Catholic church took a metaphorical statement of Christ (Christ even tell us He is speaking metaphorically and Spiritually in verse 63) and, using Aristotelian logic, created the idea of Transubstantiation, made it Dogma, and then persecuted those who didn’t hold to that position. At least until the Catholic church no longer held the political powers in their hand and could no longer enforce Dogma and church law by political decree and civil punishment.

We can see from the works of Ratramnus and Radbertus that in the middle of the 9th Century there were multiple views on the Eucharist, even among monks in the same monastery. We also see the symbolic/spiritual position was held by Rabanus Maurus who became Archbishop of Mainz, and Amalarius who was Bishop of Lyon. Note that those three who publicly supported the Spiritual/Symbolic position were not condemned or disciplined but were even promoted to Bishop and Archbishop.

Sadly, 200 or so years later we see Radbertus’s position had become the majority position in the Catholic church and those who disagreed were threatened with excommunication and punishment as we see by what happened to Berenger of Tours in the 11th century.

Christianity would have been much better off to simply say that Christ is present somehow in the bread and wine, be it spiritually, physically, symbolically or emotionally/memorially and let
individual conscious dictate how we believe that happens. Which is basically the position of Protestant Christianity and was the position of the Catholic church before the 11th century.
 
lanman87 said:
40.png
steve-b:
He begins with

“ Truly Truly I say to you, UNLESS you… ”

HERE
Click to expand...
Steve, I find it really sad that the Catholic church took a metaphorical statement of Christ (Christ even tell us He is speaking metaphorically and Spiritually in verse 63) and, using Aristotelian logic, created the idea of Transubstantiation, made it Dogma, and then persecuted those who didn’t hold to that position. At least until the Catholic church no longer held the political powers in their hand and could no longer enforce Dogma and church law by political decree and civil punishment.

We can see from the works of Ratramnus and Radbertus that in the middle of the 9th Century there were multiple views on the Eucharist, even among monks in the same monastery. We also see the symbolic/spiritual position was held by Rabanus Maurus who became Archbishop of Mainz, and Amalarius who was Bishop of Lyon. Note that those three who publicly supported the Spiritual/Symbolic position were not condemned or disciplined but were even promoted to Bishop and Archbishop.

Sadly, 200 or so years later we see Radbertus’s position had become the majority position in the Catholic church and those who disagreed were threatened with excommunication and punishment as we see by what happened to Berenger of Tours in the 11th century.

Christianity would have been much better off to simply say that Christ is present somehow in the bread and wine, be it spiritually, physically, symbolically or emotionally/memorially and let
individual conscious dictate how we believe that happens. Which is basically the position of Protestant Christianity and was the position of the Catholic church before the 11th century.
Click to expand...
Looking at that passage from John, who was Jesus teaching this point to? His disciples. including the 12 apostles…

If this is a metaphorical statement, and understood to be a metaphorical statement, THEN why did His disciples not only say Jesus statement is a hard statement to listen to, but they left Jesus never to follow Him again over His teaching. Then Jesus turned to His 12 and asked THEM, based on what just happened with His other disciples, are you going to leave me too? Peter’s answer said it all

Oh and BTW,

The Catholic Church never took this metaphorically. Did / Do some Catholics take it metaphorically? I can’t deny that. But the Catholic Church never taught Jesus was talking metaphorically, without clarification and explanation of how it happens

Going back to the 1st century

See Ignatius ch’s 6-8
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
If this is a metaphorical statement, and understood to be a metaphorical statement, THEN why did His disciples not only say Jesus statement is a hard statement to listen to, but they left Jesus never to follow Him again over His teaching.
Click to expand...
Because they didn’t understand that he was speaking metaphorically and he clarified it to them in verse 63. Those that left are the disciples that didn’t believe that Christ alludes to in verse 64. The disciples that believed in Christ are the ones that stayed.

All I know is that in the year 850 I could hold a spiritual/symbolic belief in the Eucharist and be made a Bishop or Archbishop. In 1200 I would have risked being declared a heretic and excommunicated or even killed. This begs the question, why the change? Why could, in the first 900 years of Christianity you hold a symbolic/spiritual/memorial belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist but 200 years later you could not? Did the teachings of Christ and the Apostles change in that 200 year time span? Or did the church change?
 
lanman87 said:
If this is a metaphorical statement, and understood to be a metaphorical statement, THEN why did His disciples not only say Jesus statement is a hard statement to listen to, but they left Jesus never to follow Him again over His teaching.
Ianman87:
Because they didn’t understand that he was speaking metaphorically and he clarified it to them in verse 63. Those that left are the disciples that didn’t believe that Christ alludes to in verse 64. The disciples that believed in Christ are the ones that stayed.
Click to expand...
61 …“Do you take offense at this? …

63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Are you suggesting Jesus just back peddled on what He just taught them? His flesh that He just said they must consume is of no avail? REALLY? He’s just talking metaphorically?

When Jesus said

Spirit and life THAT covers every reality there is. The spiritual and physical realities, the seen and unseen. Sacraments have a seen reality and an unseen reality. There are no other realities. Jesus did NOT just cancel out what He just finished saying. I won’t however, deny heresies and heretics didn’t cancel out what He said, and established,.

Thus Jesus said

64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him.

IOW

Jesus knows everything before it happens. He knew what THEY were thinking and what THEY would do, before the foundation of the world.

AND

He gave it to them anyway, so no one later (them or anyone) could accuse Jesus of NOT giving THEM a chance. He sandbags no one in advance, without their free will being involved.
Ianman87:
All I know is that in the year 850 I could hold a spiritual/symbolic belief in the Eucharist and be made a Bishop or Archbishop. In 1200 I would have risked being declared a heretic and excommunicated or even killed. This begs the question, why the change? Why could, in the first 900 years of Christianity you hold a symbolic/spiritual/memorial belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist but 200 years later you could not? Did the teachings of Christ and the Apostles change in that 200 year time span? Or did the church change?
Click to expand...
Don’t grab hold of what heretics believe(d) and think that’s OK

Heretics have always been around.And until the end, we’ll have to endure heretics till the end.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Don’t grab hold of what heretics believe(d) and think that’s OK
Click to expand...
So why is something not heretical in the 9th century yet is heretical in the 11th century, especially if both centuries follow the same teachings of Christ? You didn’t answer my question. Did the teaching of Christ change or did the church change?
 
lanman87 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Don’t grab hold of what heretics believe(d) and think that’s OK
Click to expand...
So why is something not heretical in the 9th century yet is heretical in the 11th century, especially if both centuries follow the same teachings of Christ? You didn’t answer my question. Did the teaching of Christ change or did the church change?
Click to expand...
It’s always been Church teaching that the Eucharist is real, it is NOT a symbol.
 
Not according to Catholic doctrine, which holds the one Church of Christ to be an entity with visible delineation united by the same faith, same sacraments, and same government.

but , while they are not members of this visible body, baptism and faith in Christ puts non-Catholics in an imperfect relationship with this one Church imperfect, because baptism

but even then if this person has triniterian baptisim he is a member of the body but do not have the full trurh

( i heavly desagree with this by the way)
 
steve-b said:
It’s always been Church teaching that the Eucharist is real, it is NOT a symbol.
Click to expand...
A consensus of this teaching didn’t emerge until at least the 10th century. Before that their was no consensus position and the church did not dogmatically define how Christ was in the Eucharist until the Fourth Lateran Council.
 
historyfan81 said:
Not according to Catholic doctrine, which holds the one Church of Christ to be an entity with visible delineation united by the same faith, same sacraments, and same government.
Click to expand...
And who fits that description?

Only The Catholic Church
40.png
historyfan81:
but , while they are not members of this visible body, baptism and faith in Christ puts non-Catholics in an imperfect relationship with this one Church imperfect, because baptism

but even then if this person has triniterian baptisim he is a member of the body but do not have the full trurh

( i heavly desagree with this by the way)
Click to expand...
Free will is what makes us culpable in the end, for what we choose to do, and believe…till the end.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
40.png
steve-b:
IOW He wasn’t speaking metaphorically
Click to expand...
No, He was explaining His metaphor to them because they didn’t understand.
Click to expand...
And they didn’t understand because they had no faith. And notice, Jesus didn’t go after them. He didn’t argue with them for being wrong. He didn’t try and convince them over and over to change their view. He let them go. I’d say that’s one of the scariest passages in all of scripture.
 
Last edited:
If they believe and are baptized, they are in an imperfect communion.

Problem is that increasing numbers have discarded baptism.
 
i was stating what catholisim states

for my own belive
i for one dont belive the curch is an institution much less a goverment , a protestant who actually follows the words of god and the example of jesus is a true christian , unlike a catholic that dosent but claim he does .

and viceversa a catholic that follows the word of god and the example of jesus is a true chirstian unlike
lukewarm protestant , being part of the roman cahtolic curch dosent make any one less or more chirstian.
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
i was stating what catholisim states

for my own belive
i for one dont belive the curch is an institution much less a goverment ,
Click to expand...
For some information on the points you make

what does Church mean?
40.png
historyfan81:
a protestant who actually follows the words of god and the example of jesus is a true christian , unlike a catholic that dosent but claim he does .
Click to expand...
By definition,

How can a “Protestant” who is divided from the only Church Jesus established, and insisted on not just a squishy inderstanding of unity with His Church but perfect union , "actually be following" Jesus? Historically speaking, Protestantism is one of history’s “Great Heresies”
40.png
historyfan81:
and viceversa a catholic that follows the word of god and the example of jesus is a true chirstian unlike
lukewarm protestant , being part of the roman cahtolic curch dosent make any one less or more chirstian.
Click to expand...
Technically, what makes one a Christian? 3 min Catholic explanation HERE

AFTER Valid Baptism

Then one needs to follow ALL the commands of Jesus. That can only be done “in” HIS Church, the Catholic Church, who has ALL the sacraments Jesus instituted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top