The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So Jesus lied when He gave all His promises to His ONE and ONLY Church that HE established personally on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter?

This goes back to the original post in this topic. Is the One and Only church the Catholic church (all who follow the Bishop of Rome) or the catholic(universal) church which is made of all whom the Holy Spirit calls to faith, convicts of sin, empowers to serve, gifts spiritual gifts, and seals to the day of redemption.

The last description contradicts Jesus own prayer

as follows

That they are PERFECTLY ONE

And Since

The HS only speaks what He hears from Jesus Jn 16:12-15

THEREFORE

NO ONE can claim later, that the HS led THEM into division from the Catholic Church, established on Peter and those who are in perfect union with Peter, just as Jesus established

Jesus calls for ZERO division as in PERFECT unity

lanman87:

Just to add, I would agree that the catholic(universal) church was their at the beginning. But the Catholic church, that is the Roman church, was not.

I’ll add,

your statement, after all the yrs you’ve been here, is quite stunning.

Just one example, out of many, going back 1 yr ago, we(you and I) had this discussion

Nov 2019

the same Church, our Lord made Peter chief apostle over, who received the keys from Jesus, and in this Church are ALL those in perfect union with Peter, and this has been the case for 2000 yrs. And will be here till the end of time. THAT is a promise Jesus made…

SO

Argue all you want against this.

As for me, I will NOT play games with that. It won’t go good for THAT person who does and dies separated.
That is NOT from me it is from scripture + Tradition + 2000 yrs of magisterial teaching

 

[lanman87]

As for me, I will NOT play games with that. It won’t go good for THAT person who does and dies separated.
That is NOT from me it is from scripture + Tradition + 2000 yrs of magisterial teaching

And as for me. I will trust in Christ and the fact that I’ve experienced and continue to experience the Holy Spirit working in my heart and my life to change me and draw me into repentance, holiness, love and service.

 

[lanman87]

NO ONE can claim later, that the HS led THEM into division from the Catholic Church, established on Peter and those who are in perfect union with Peter, just as Jesus established

So you are basically calling all the Non-Catholic Christians liars?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

He, They, We, worship the host (the Eucharist) NOT the container, but content, what the container holds.

Augustine worshipped the host thinking it was literal incarnate Christ?

Any reference?

Thanks for asking

Sermon 229 He talks about what happens in the mass. (emphasis mine)

Take away the word,(the consecration) I mean, it is just bread and wine; add the word, (consecration) and it’s now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, (consecration) it’s bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament. To this you say, ‘Amen.’ …

Just a comment:

After consecration, there is a change from one thing into another, THAT describes what we’ve been talking about, even though the word transubstantiation is not used in the vocabulary yet.

mcq72:

Perhaps, but for sure I question your imposition on the Catholic bishop.

Question away. I impose nothing. I quote

So Jesus lied when He gave all His promises to His ONE and ONLY Church that HE established personally on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter?

mcq72:

Pure deflection of any, any criticism of teaching/ doctrine.

you just described yourself

mcq72:

I am thinking of Paul saying let men be liars before imputing God, the only good one between us. But you are right to say we can lie, and maybe that I say you lie, but for you to say I would be calling God a liar by saying you err is weirdly wrong and evasive.

May I suggest, Try to keep points being made, in context, not out of context

mcq72:

So for example if one were to say Orthodox have valid and licit Eucharist, you would say that makes God a liar…

I said illicit NOT licit, and the context was different from how YOU said it. Big difference

AND

I’ve always thought, that one in schism is NOT the definition of “Orthodox” but the definition of "un Orthodox

Just sayin

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Again 2 warnings, and The consequences if they don’t change?

Hell​

After 2000+ posts, I think I can risk going a bit off-topic to ask this question: If this is indeed the consequence, why do your Catholic bishops engage in “Ecumenical speak” with the Orthodox (who per your properly referenced references risk hell simply by being Orthodox), rather than steadfastly calling them to repentance through return to Rome?

The language the Church uses is to propose not impose

Excerpted From: Evangelii Nuntiandi - Papal Encyclicals

Evangelii Nuntiandi. Paul VI 1975
Evangelization in the modern world

"Anyone who takes the trouble to study in the Council’s documents the questions upon which these excuses draw too superficially will find quite a different view. It would certainly be an error to impose something on the consciences of our brethren. But to propose to their consciences the truth of the Gospel and salvation in Jesus Christ, with complete clarity and with a total respect for the free options which it presents "

That said

It doesn’t mean the Church won’t exercise her authority when necessary to make things clear. OR to remind fellow human beings, the clear truths that must be given unadulterated with the known consequences from Jesus and the apostles if those truths are not followed. That doesn’t violate a person’s free will to accept or reject the truths.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

NO ONE can claim later, that the HS led THEM into division from the Catholic Church, established on Peter and those who are in perfect union with Peter, just as Jesus established

So you are basically calling all the Non-Catholic Christians liars?

You need a break. What did Jesus say?

Ya can’t blame the HS for inspiring division, .let alone all the divisions we see.

 

[mcq72]

After consecration, there is a change from one thing into another, THAT describes what we’ve been talking about, even though the word transubstantiation is not used in the vocabulary yet.

Totally agree, even if he didnt mention the word symbolic or figurative or spiritual in this text.

Question away. I impose nothing. I quote

Well you do impose. I take your quote, along with all the others so as not to impose.

you just described yourself

I dont quote from a self professed perfect source as you do, so I deflect criticism less as compared to all with CC.

I said illicit NOT licit,

I know you said illicit but again, if you and the CC are wrong on this, as per Orthodox belief, you have argued that would make God a liar, that He failed the Church.

Not a great way to propose truth

Indeed an imposition.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So Jesus lied when He gave all His promises to His ONE and ONLY Church that HE established personally on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter?

Pope Pius XII quoted St. Robert Bellarmine in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi:

1. Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...ii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

After consecration, there is a change from one thing into another, THAT describes what we’ve been talking about, even though the word transubstantiation is not used in the vocabulary yet.

Totally agree, even if he didnt mention the word symbolic or figurative or spiritual in this text.

context context context

Question away. I impose nothing. I quote

mcq72:

Well you do impose. I take your quote, along with all the others so as not to impose.

I give information. What a person does with it is up to them.

you just described yourself

mcq72:

I dont quote from a self professed perfect source as you do, so I deflect criticism less as compared to all with CC.

I quote to show who the author is.

I said illicit NOT licit,

mcq72:

I know you said illicit but again, if you and the CC are wrong on this, as per Orthodox belief, you have argued that would make God a liar, that He failed the Church.

Not a great way to propose truth

Now THAT is a lousy argument

Here are your errors in your thinking and your arguments

From Pius IX 1864

THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. –
   Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

 

[lanman87]

You need a break. What did Jesus say?

Well, according to you, Non-Catholic Christians are either lying or deceived. Which do you think it is?

Those are the only possibilities you leave.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You need a break. What did Jesus say?

Well, according to you, Non-Catholic Christians are either lying or deceived. Which do you think it is?

Those are the only possibilities you leave.

according to ME? Look at my quotes

C’mon, what did Jesus say about division and those who do it?

 

[Isaac14]

The language the Church uses is to propose not impose

This seems to dodge my question. If the truth is that the schism of the Orthodox is a mortal sin, then these “ecumenical speak” dialogues seem to be rather deceptive in that the Catholic bishops and theologians in attendance are agreeing to statements that would give the Orthodox the impression that the Catholics do not think we are in schism.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As for me, I will NOT play games with that. It won’t go good for THAT person who does and dies separated.
That is NOT from me it is from scripture + Tradition + 2000 yrs of magisterial teaching

And as for me. I will trust in Christ and the fact that I’ve experienced and continue to experience the Holy Spirit working in my heart and my life to change me and draw me into repentance, holiness, love and service.

Yet

Consider the following

in ~ 55 a.d., Who did Paul say, people in division are following ?

It is NOT Jesus. they follow, Paul says they follow their own selfish appetites. And where does Paul say THAT ultimately comes from? Paul says it’s from SATAN.

Does Paul make any concessions? NO.
Does Paul give any what ifs? NO

Paul says to avoid them.

Rm 16:
17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions Division / dissension διχοστασίαι and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[a] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Unpacking that,

Paul is writing to the Catholic Church in Rome.

From the Greek NT study bible not an English translation

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
Translation: (links operational)
ἐκκλησία ecclesia = Church
κατά kata = according to
ὅλης holos = whole / all / universal
τῆς ho = The
= The Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Q:​

Why would Paul make that point about those who divide from the Church the apostles are building, don’t serve Our Lord? … unless, maybe the idea is already floating around that those who are divided are saying that, AND trying to sell via fair and flattering words, to convince the simple minded that by dividing from the Catholic Church they too are serving Our Lord?

Simple truth, Paul says anyone who does this, isn’t serving Our Lord.

Who does Paul say division ultimately comes from? It’s from SATAN

AND

There is no expiration date on this

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The language the Church uses is to propose not impose

This seems to dodge my question. If the truth is that the schism of the Orthodox is a mortal sin, then these “ecumenical speak” dialogues seem to be rather deceptive in that the Catholic bishops and theologians in attendance are agreeing to statements that would give the Orthodox the impression that the Catholics do not think we are in schism.

Well stated

Obviously I can’t speak for anyone but myself.

As for Ecumenism,

The ides does float around Re: Ecumenism vs Indifferentism True Ecumenism vs. Indifferentism

AND

In Eastern Canon Law

CCEO canon 905. In fulfilling ecumenical work especially through open and frank dialogue and common undertakings with other Christians, due prudence has to be kept avoiding the dangers of false irenicism, indifferentism and immoderate zeal.

BTW, which Catholic documents deny that the Orthodox are in schism ?

 

[Nicene]

In sacred scripture it says:

Jn 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

So what is “spirit”? It’s not “a spirit” it is however:

1. A supernatural being or essence: such as the Holy Spirit
2. The immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
3. A person having a character or disposition of a specified nature

And how the church understands now and in the councils who God is. The Trinitarian belief is:

Trinitarianism is the Christian doctrine/Dogma that God exists as three persons hypostases but is one being The persons are understood to exist as God the Father, God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit each of them having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

Read that carefully. And here again is the Catechism:

[202] Jesus himself affirms that God is “the one Lord” whom you must love “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength”.6 At the same time Jesus gives us to understand that he himself is “the Lord”.7 To confess that Jesus is Lord is distinctive of Christian faith. This is not contrary to belief in the One God. Nor does believing in the Holy Spirit as “Lord and giver of life” introduce any division into the One God:

We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.8

Through the sacraments are are partakers of the Divine Nature most especially in the Eucharist:

2 Pet: 3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,
4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

God is in fact three coeternal, consubstantial persons, a “hypostases”. The three persons are distinct but of substance, essence or nature "homoousios"

. . . . Since you like St. Augustine you should read De Trinitate. . . .

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

What was He before He was incarnate but Spirit?

Actually no. In sacred scripture it says:

Jn 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

So what is “spirit”? It’s not “a spirit” it is however:

1. A supernatural being or essence: such as the Holy Spirit
2. The immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
3. A person having a character or disposition of a specified nature

And how the church understands now and in the councils who God is. The Trinitarian

There is an enormous gulf between “God is a spirit” and “God is Spirit” Since you like St. Augustine you should read De Trinitate. Trinitarian belief rejects “God is a spirit” and formulated the Trinitarian belief in opposition to the gnostics who insisted God is a spirit.

However I do thank you for your post. Not only have you reaffirmed the preaching and teaching of your religion but have helped illustrate the difference between Modalism and Trinitarianism. You may actually believe that you are trinitarian but you are not. How can you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus when you don’t even know who they are?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

If Trinitarian belief rejects “God is a spirit” why does the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible in John 4:24 read…God is a spirit???

 

[Wannano]

My problem is with @Nicene who claims Jesus is not a spirit. Or are you building a case that agrees with him?

I’m, not following Nicene’s points

Jesus is both. Spirit and body.

---

Agreed. I wonder if Nicene is willing to call you a Modalist too!

 

[lanman87]

according to ME? Look at my quotes

C’mon, what did Jesus say about division and those who do it?

By According to you, I mean your understanding of the teachings of Scripture. Since you like to equivocate I’ll just ask a direct yes or no question.

Does your understanding of scripture cause you to believe that non-Catholic Christians are either lying or deceived when they claim to be filled with and led by the Holy Spirit and claim to be in a personal relationship with Christ by faith? A yes or no will suffice.

 

[mcq72]

So what is “spirit”? It’s not “a spirit” it is however:

So is that like saying an apple is not an apple but a fruit that is usually red and round?

I follow your definition, almost as per Merriam Webster.

I dont follow how a spirit is not a spirit . Like a spirit as defined by Webster is not a spirit as defined by Webster?

No matter, we are both have same Chrystology.Amen

 

[TULIPed]

Excellent question. I wonder if this guy was lying…

https://www.ericliddell.org/about-us/eric-liddell/biography/