The Universal Church

[lanman87]

Or how about this woman

Missionaries You Should Know: Lottie Moon - IMB

Since 1918, the SBC’s annual missions offering has carried the name Lottie Moon. Her life is an example that inspires us to live for what truly matters.

www.imb.org

 

[Isaac14]

Well stated

Obviously I can’t speak for anyone but myself.

As for Ecumenism,

I’d like to ask a direct question: Are the Catholic bishops and theologians who, under the direction of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, are engaged with discussions and agree to statements with the Orthodox Church misstating the Catholic position?

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

The entirety of agreed statements such as Chieti, Balamand, Ravenna, etc. all operate from the premise that communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Church has been broken and that differences in how theology is expressed have developed. A dialogue that calls one side “true” and the other side “schismatic” is doomed to fail.

 

[mcq72]

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

Well of course it ( that CC could be wrong on any teaching) is a lousy argument from Catholic perspective.

The indifferentism text is just that same sectarian cloak shielding from any sight of any internal error.

I disagree with its points being attached to our beliefs, with some qualifications.

As to 15, that men are free to choose religion, I agree, a type of free will. Yet I also believe we are not free but slaves to sin and unbelief except removed, changed by grace.

Disagree with 19 th century Catholic church speaking against many " “freedoms”, whether of religion, governance, to have bible societies, even vernacular bibles, etc…these were like the last throngs of the CC secular reign in my opinion.

As to 16 and 17, there is the teaching that those who have not heard the gospel will be judged accordingly, but otherwise agree against those that are " indifferent".

Finally, 18 would be a poor description also of our beliefs.

You should know we are not indifferent to the CC

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

you raise a hypothetical. I raised a quote from Paul

SO

I’ll just say

People can "claim" all sorts of things that may not even be close to reality.

According to Paul, those who cause dissensions Division / dissension διχοστασίαι don’t serve Our Lord.

So

Why not answer Paul?

 

[steve-b]

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!

Maybe it would be good to see the description of Modalism and why it is wrong

Modalism = What the Early Church Believed: God in Three Persons | Catholic Answers

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

Well of course it ( that CC could be wrong on any teaching) is a lousy argument from Catholic perspective.

The indifferentism text is just that same sectarian cloak shielding from any sight of any internal error.

I disagree with its points being attached to our beliefs, with some qualifications.

As to 15, that men are free to choose religion, I agree, a type of free will. Yet I also believe we are not free but slaves to sin and unbelief except removed, changed by grace.

Disagree with 19 th century Catholic church speaking against many " “freedoms”, whether of religion, governance, to have bible societies, even vernacular bibles, etc…these were like the last throngs of the CC secular reign in my opinion.

As to 16 and 17, there is the teaching that those who have not heard the gospel will be judged accordingly, but otherwise agree against those that are " indifferent".

Finally, 18 would be a poor description also of our beliefs.

You should know we are not indifferent to the CC

How is it you can’t understand 4 simple points without trying to twist them into a pretzel?

 

[lanman87]

you raise a hypothetical. I raised a quote from Paul

SO

I’ll just say

People can "claim" all sorts of things that may not even be close to reality.

According to Paul, those who cause dissensions Division / dissension διχοστασίαι don’t serve Our Lord.

So

Why not answer Paul?

Once again, equivocation.

My question is not hypothetical at all. There are hundreds of millions of people on the earth today who’s sincere belief is that they are filled with the Holy Spirit by faith (or I should say, came to faith by an act of the Holy Spirit) and are in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ(where the Holy Spirit lives in them) and believe they live their lives by faith. I’ll ask again. Are they lying and/or deceived according to your understanding of scripture (which includes Paul)?

I don’t understand why it is so difficult for you to say yes or no.

 

[TULIPed]

There are hundreds of millions of people on the earth today who’s sincere belief is that they are filled with the Holy Spirit by faith (or I should say, came to faith by an act of the Holy Spirit) and are in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ(where the Holy Spirit lives in them) and believe they live their lives by faith.

Not only do they believe - they demonstrate their love through action. They give till it hurts, they share the gospel - some at the risk of their lives, they take care of the least of the flock, they overcome addiction and then help others to do so as well, and on, and on and on.

Of course doing these things are risky and sometime dangerous. This agape love pushes us out of our comfort zones…yes - even out of the church building (gasp!). The really hard work of believing occurs outside the knave - in the world, and in our hearts.

I know and serve side by side with many Protestants and Catholics. Not a one who’s in the trenches and giving sacrificially would dare accuse the other of schism or heresy. I’ve never heard a word of it. Hard to speak of such things when you’re busy taking care of people - working, praying - and even worshipping together. They show their love for their King and each other in service and sacrifice. This is the Church universal.

 

[mcq72]

How is it you can’t understand 4 simple points without trying to twist them into a pretzel?

You mean I don’t understand the four points because I disagree they apply to “other” churches ? Now that’s a pretzel.

 

[mcq72]

Maybe it would be good to see the description of Modalism and why it is wrong

You mean wrong to apply to Trinitarians when speaking of the Son being a Spirit and not mentioning His forms.

Per your article apparently a few churches indeed are modalists, but no need to infer the other 39, 994 remaining churches just because they once in awhile say that Jesus can operate as a Spirit.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Perhaps they weren’t taught Mortalium Animos in the seminary.

 

[mcq72]

Perhaps they weren’t taught Mortalium Animos in the seminary.

Now there is another oldie but goodie. (1928 papal encyclical)

“We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.”

“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors
were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]”

“We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil ( indifferent ecumenism)”

“It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, ( as if God could be weak or erring in His promises)”

Non Catholics are a “false Christianity”.

“But in reality beneath these enticing words ( of ecumenism) and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.”

"nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises (indifferent ecumenism);

“for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.”

A lot of good, bad, and ugly here. I did say some good , that is having same sentiment but from Protestant side ( not to injure our faith for sake of unity).

Seems to be more than a propsal but imposing on Catholics what to think and what is lawful to do with ecumenism.

 

[Isaac14]

Perhaps they weren’t taught Mortalium Animos in the seminary.

I’m not at all familiar with that document. What impact does (or should) this document have on the dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox?

 

[steve-b]

Well stated

Obviously I can’t speak for anyone but myself.

As for Ecumenism,

Isaac14:

I’d like to ask a direct question: Are the Catholic bishops and theologians who, under the direction of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, are engaged with discussions and agree to statements with the Orthodox Church misstating the Catholic position?

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

Isaac14:

The entirety of agreed statements such as Chieti, Balamand, Ravenna, etc. all operate from the premise that communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Church has been broken and that differences in how theology is expressed have developed. A dialogue that calls one side “true” and the other side “schismatic” is doomed to fail.

Re:​

Ravenna
Balamand
Chieti

as you can see, in those links, we’ve discussed these discussions in the past

YES

Those docs are discussions …, discussions that are ongoing
If solutions were settled by the Church on the subjects discussed, , discussion would be over…true?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

you raise a hypothetical. I raised a quote from Paul

SO

I’ll just say

People can "claim" all sorts of things that may not even be close to reality.

According to Paul, those who cause dissensions Division / dissension διχοστασίαι don’t serve Our Lord.

So

Why not answer Paul?

Once again, equivocation.

Once again you dodge the answer
ianman87:

My question is not hypothetical at all. There are hundreds of millions of people on the earth today who’s sincere belief is that they are filled with the Holy Spirit by faith (or I should say, came to faith by an act of the Holy Spirit) and are in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ(where the Holy Spirit lives in them) and believe they live their lives by faith. I’ll ask again. Are they lying and/or deceived according to your understanding of scripture (which includes Paul)?

Do you realize that for a person to be a heretic, by definition, they have to have been previously baptized, and they have faith?

For more definitions

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
ianman87:

I don’t understand why it is so difficult for you to say yes or no.

Just because one has what they would say is “Faith”, does it mean that faith they say they have is going to save them.

And

THAT is from scripture.

All those people Paul is writing to, that I quoted, and are divisive?

Guess what? THEY are already by definition

Baptized

IN THE CHURCH,

And left

AND

What did Paul say about THEM?

So I ask you in return, why can’t you answer THAT?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How is it you can’t understand 4 simple points without trying to twist them into a pretzel?

You mean I don’t understand the four points because I disagree they apply to “other” churches ? Now that’s a pretzel.

"other Churches" that are outside dissensions Division / dissension διχοστασίαι of the Catholic Church is what ALL the consequences for divisions mentioned in scripture, is all about. For 2000 yrs those warnings have been there. Does it stop dissensions Division / dissension διχοστασίαι AND factious αἱρετικὸν from happening? NOPE !

That doesn’t come from me. I’m not the author of any of it. I’m just quoting scripture and Tradition , and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church
Do those warnings and consequences mentioned expire over time? NOPE

 

[mcq72]

What did Paul say about THEM ?

So I ask you in return, why can’t you answer THAT?

If I may interject, perhaps Orthodox and Protestants are really asking that of Catholics., that Paul’s “THEM” is you as a Catholic.

Such a rift, like why?

Why is it likened to Fiddler on the Roof,where to marry outside the faith and tradition is like a death in the family, and so is a Catholic going Protestant or vice versa viewed in same fashion?

We don’t freak out as much when say a Baptist goes Lutheran, or and Anglican going Assembly of God etc…but crossing that Tiber…

Again we are not “indifferent”.

 

[Isaac14]

we’ve discussed these discussions

YES

Those docs are discussions …, discussions that are ongoing

Have I ever said otherwise?

If solutions were settled by the Church on the subjects discussed, , discussion would be over…true?

Have I ever said otherwise?

The point I am making, that you ignore, is that these statements represent the agreed mind of both the Catholic and Orthodox Church as we work toward a future solution that will allow restoration of communion between our Churches. It is exceedingly difficult to have a conversation with you when you respond to points I (and others here) are not making.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What did Paul say about THEM ?

So I ask you in return, why can’t you answer THAT?

If I may interject, perhaps Orthodox and Protestants are really asking that of Catholics., that Paul’s “THEM” is you as a Catholic.

Neither highlighted group existed in Paul’s day.

However

Different heresies DID exist during apostolic times. Gnosticism being one.

mcq72:

We don’t freak out as much when say a Baptist goes Lutheran, or and Anglican going Assembly of God etc…

ALL mentioned are Protestants. ALL are in division from the One True Church. ALL a lateral movement within Protestantism.

mcq72:

but crossing that Tiber…

now THAT would NOT be a lateral move. THAT would be an example of one ending their division from the Catholic Church.

mcq72:

Again we are not “indifferent”.

Thinking all of Protestantism is equal to the Catholic Church, is the definition of indifferent.

Again, quoting from what I previously posted

example of 4 errors in indifferent thinking

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]

Just because one has what they would say is “Faith”, does it mean that faith they say they have is going to save them.

So is that a yes or a no?

So I ask you in return, why can’t you answer THAT?

Because the question of “those people” being divisive by not holding to the teachings of Paul is another topic.

The question at hand is

There are hundreds of millions of people on the earth today who’s sincere belief is that they are filled with the Holy Spirit by faith (or I should say, came to faith by an act of the Holy Spirit) and are in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ(where the Holy Spirit lives in them) and believe they live their lives by faith. I’ll ask again. Are they lying and/or deceived according to your understanding of scripture (which includes Paul)?

I’ll try one more time.

Are they lying (or deceived) about the Holy Spirit bringing them to faith?
Are they lying (or deceived) about the Holy Spirit living in and guiding them?

I know what Paul says, I want to know what you say. Once again, a simple yes or no will work.