The Universal Church

[Michael16]

Well, @TULIPed, @steve-b, @mcq72 and @Wannano:

The problem we have here is that we’re arguing over semantics when our focus should be on doing what Christ told us to do.

Now, as per Lumen Gentium; our task as Catholic laity to get in close with our separated brethren in Christ, share with them the Truth with charity in a way that will lead them home into the fullness of the Catholic Faith in communion with the Holy Father.

The basic thing we have to do is: Help the Protestants clear up what they misunderstand.

We have to do it charitably.

 

[mcq72]

Those you mention, who won’t agree, qualify as non believers too

please clarify. I mention two groups:

#1 those in Jesus day that Christ said did not believe from the beginning,

#2 non literal communion participants today ( put it this way because not all Protestants have same understanding of how non-literal flesh eating)

Jesus gave His Church the perfect example to follow here,

follow what? is focus here following correct communion understanding?..i find that lacking considering the bigger issue of following Jesus no matter what understanding…like follow who is the question, which Peter answered, not weighing in on any specific eating understanding.

 

[Michael16]

The thing is @mcq72, is that we have to believe together: As in agree WHAT we believe. Not just muddle through this thing with an inchoate understanding of we believe.

 

[mcq72]

The thing is @mcq72, is that we have to believe together: As in agree WHAT we believe. Not just muddle through this thing with an inchoate understanding of we believe.

well thank you, but we do know what the other believes…both sides have been quite coherent on their understanding…perhaps one muddles thru that uncomfortable feeling of not being one on issue at hand

 

[Michael16]

I’m not sure I understand you, @mcq72.

Let me put it to you this way:

I can’t receive in a Protestant service because by receiving Communion; I’d be agreeing with you when I don’t. As well as that you don’t have a valid Eucharist because your church lacks Apostolic Succession and thus no valid Holy Orders. No valid Holy Orders; no valid Eucharist because your pastor cannot confect the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

All because your communities disagree with us and either broke away from or were founded outside of the Church.

 

[mcq72]

Isn’t “follower of Christ” a loose understanding by many, for the definition of “Christian” ?

yes but as loose as you can get, for we know the wheat are in with the tares, and we know not all who call Him lord will enter in etc…hence no, a disciple is not necessarily a true Christian

Some are very much convicted that a church saves, even a specific church, and that Christ is very constrained to operate within those confines.

Some are very much convicted that Jesus saves specifically and personally, within confines of the universal church, be that C, O or P.

n the episode we’re referring to, “disciples” of Christ left Him over a particular teaching of His.

yes that is one side of the quilt ( visible linear chronology). The back side (Jesus) shows they never really were with Him.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

It’s Christ that saves; not the Church herself.

The Church, while maintaining Apostolic Succession; faithfully preserves, passes on and teaches the saving Gospel that Christ and the Apostles taught.

Step out of that; with only Baptism, Matrimony, only laity to lead and teach a doctrine laden with errors; is a very cut down version of the Faith.

 

[mcq72]

I’m not sure I understand you, @mcq72.

Let me put it to you this way:

I can’t receive in a Protestant service because by receiving Communion; I’d be agreeing with you when I don’t. As well as that you don’t have a valid Eucharist because your church lacks Apostolic Succession and thus no valid Holy Orders. No valid Holy Orders; no valid Eucharist because your pastor cannot confect the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

All because your communities disagree with us and either broke away from or were founded outside of the Church.

I understand you, thank you. Pretty sure you understand us also, your welcome…

 

[mcq72]

Step out of that; with only Baptism, Matrimony, only laity to lead and teach a doctrine laden with errors; is a very cut down version of the Fait

agree…thought of the same (cut down version) when you listed all the qualifications for “valid” communion, and I wished to be back in earliest , apostolic days when the president breaking the bread did not ask, “are you consubstantiation, transubstantiation, spiritual and or symbolic eater ?” for sure they focused more on , are you baptized and are you at peace with God or your brethren on any matter .

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Those you mention, who won’t agree, qualify as non believers too

please clarify. I mention two groups:

#1 those in Jesus day that Christ said did not believe from the beginning,

Ok,

Why then does scripture call them disciples if they don’t believe? AND Disciples of Whom? It’s Jesus of course.

Since Jesus was baptized by His cousin John, before his public ministry started, does that mean all the disciples of Jesus were also baptized? Scripture doesn’t say.

NOW

What do YOU call a

“Christian” who refuses to be in the only Church Jesus established Himself, on Peter, and those in perfect union with Peter?

mcq72:

#2 non literal communion participants today ( put it this way because not all Protestants have same understanding of how non-literal flesh eating)

To be specific

How about non existent Eucharist, because of no valid ordination thus non existent consecration?

Jesus gave His Church the perfect example to follow here,

mcq72:

follow what? is focus here following correct communion understanding…i find that lacking considering the bigger issue of following Jesus no matter what understanding…like follow who is the question, which Peter answered, not weighing in on any specific eating understanding.

As in

Jesus gave us this perfect example to follow

1. He didn’t get mad when His own disciples disagreed with Him to His face
2. He didn’t argue with them for their refusal to agree
3. He patiently explained what the truth is through their objections
4. He let them go, when they wouldn’t accept the truth, not getting mad or flustered at THEM.

THAT is the perfect example to follow for anyone.

To extend that example:

Paul gave Bishop Titus this instruction, of giving someone 2 attempts to come around. If it doesn’t happen, move on, have nothing more to do with them… They prove they are already self condemned…NOT my words, but from Paul

Titus 3:10-11 “As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted ἐξέστραπται and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος .”

Ok OK, I hang around longer than 2 times

 

[Michael16]

Sigh.

Where’s all this hostility coming from, @mcq72?

Plus, it’s hard to have a conversation with you when your habit is to attack when you can’t prove your points.

 

[Wannano]

Sigh.

Where’s all this hostility coming from, @mcq72?

Plus, it’s hard to have a conversation with you when your habit is to attack when you can’t prove your points.

I wish you had said that last night for it would have been the funniest post ofvthe year!!

 

[Michael16]

Hahahaha @Wannano

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Isn’t “follower of Christ” a loose understanding by many, for the definition of “Christian” ?

yes but as loose as you can get, for we know the wheat are in with the tares, and we know not all who call Him lord will enter in etc…hence no, a disciple is not necessarily a true Christian

So is it fair to say, loosely speaking

Those disciples being followers of Christ, were loosely Christians?

NOW

You bring up valid points about wheat and tares, and not all calling Jesus Lord will…etc…

So

It’s valid to associate the Gospel episode [Jn 6] we’re discussing, and THOSE disciples that left Jesus over His teaching on the Eucharist, with those today that are divided from Our Lord’s Church, and don’t accept the true understanding of Jesus in [Jn 6]… correct?

mcq72:

Some are very much convicted that a church saves, even a specific church, and that Christ is very constrained to operate within those confines.

Some are very much convicted that Jesus saves specifically and personally, within confines of the universal church, be that C, O or P.

Is EVERYBODY the pillar and foundation of truth? Is every Religious organization a Church? Who specifically is Paul referring to as "the Pillar and foundation of truth"?

n the episode we’re referring to, “disciples” of Christ left Him over a particular teaching of His.

mcq72:

yes that is one side of the quilt ( visible linear chronology). The back side (Jesus) shows they never really were with Him.

Well,

Then THAT can be said of a whole bunch of people.

Hence Jesus said

Few are saved.

HERE
&
HERE

Because

HERE

Re: men’s love, (charity) in the last link, division from the Catholic Church is ALSO a sin against “charity” , which is WHY Paul condemns that sin in Rom 16:, & Gal 5.

 

[Wannano]

@mcq72,

Stop dancing around. Make your stand so we can take you down.

Every point you bring up, we take the position and you retreat and go somewhere else and we take that position too.

And now all you can do is throw out non sequiturs and taunts.

Stand.

Can he sit down yet?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

thank you very much.

I’ll take a good protestant Christian over a lousy, nominal Catholic any day of the week. Christmas and Easter Catholics are not Catholic to me at all. They don’t live it and they forsake the assembly by showing up to Church twice a year. Ridiculous.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

for sure they focused more on , are you baptized and are you at peace with God or your brethren on any matter .

Ignatius is pretty early – and he made it clear that a validly ordained Bishop or an appointed apprentice of the Bishop is how we receive a valid Eucharist. Can’t just be Joe Blow from Idaho declaring himself clergy like we see today.

 

[Michael16]

Hahahaha Right on, @Lenten_ashes

 

[mcq72]

Ignatius is pretty early – and he made it clear that a validly ordained Bishop or an appointed apprentice of the Bishop is how we receive a valid Eucharist. Can’t just be Joe Blow from Idaho declaring himself clergy like we see today.

Well, i was speaking of the recipients qualifications, not the president ( presider, presbyter/ bishop or his appointee) . I posted " president" of the gathering/ mass, as found on a similarly aged document as Ignatius( Justim Martyr?).

Never the less, i suposed i regarded the president also, for the earliest church ( thousands) certainly did not solely rely on twelve apostles and bishops, if they had any yet, to break bread daily in many households. A responsible " president" sufficed apparently.

So at one end you have a Joe Blow, but at the other end you could have 8 to 9 years of study and preparation to be just a priest and more for bishop. Certainly no one here is suggesting the earliest church appointed Joe Blows, but they most certainly did not have the rigors of today either.

 

[mcq72]

It’s valid to associate the Gospel episode [Jn 6] we’re discussing, and THOSE disciples that left Jesus over His teaching on the Eucharist, with those today that are divided from Our Lord’s Church, and don’t accept the true understanding of Jesus in [Jn 6]… correct?

To associate in the same loose/ broad stoke, no, not correct. Not apples to oranges in the least per John 6. We are all associated with the faith and understanding of Peter as portrayed in John 6.

: men’s love, (charity) in the last link, division from the Catholic Church is ALSO a sin against “charity” , which is WHY Paul condemns that sin in Rom 16:, & Gal 5

Then by your point the CC has been vey uncharitable to those who have a different view of say for example. The Assumption of Mary, where one day as a Catholic you can believe contrary and still go to heaven and the next day in November 1950 to are in danger of hell fire for same belief…that is not very tolerant anymore. Reminds me of early church threatening excommunication, on both sides, over Easter date.

Point being, one can be dogmatic and cause division unecesarily. And as Paul says , so one can “show who has God’s approval”?