The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Thank goodness for google translate.

What, I know these latin phrases off the top of my head…not. lol

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Division = all of this

1. leaving the Catholic Church
2. Not returning to the Catholic Church
3. Not entering the Catholic Church

Being united with Christ is what makes you united to the universal (catholic) church. Not being united with Rome.

Not being united with the successor to Peter, means THOSE are outside Our Lord’s command that ALL need to be perfectly ONE with His plan.

Not being united to the successor to Peter means one is NOT Catholic in the Catholic Church
ianman87:

The fact that there are millions upon millions who profess Christ in both word and deed and who are united with Christ by faith and the indwelling Holy Spirit and are not under the authority of Rome, shows that the Roman definition of “Catholic church” and the necessity of being under the authority of Rome is false.

Those then, that you describe, if baptized, but not in union with the successor to St Peter,

in short, you describe 2 definitions

2089 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; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
ianman87:

Furthermore, being “Perfectly one” doesn’t come from us and our effort or understanding. It comes from Christ and what He has done and continues to do for us. He takes this rabble of mankind, with all our issues and prejudices and inability to comprehend the greatness of God, and makes those of us who have been changed by Christ into one in Christ.

I’ll just say, I don’t make the rules. After all who am I?

So

I say it that way because

people’s opinions who disagree with Jesus or any of the scriptures, or the Church, on clear teachings that require obedience to the teaching, make a serious mistake.

Especially considering just one example

Paul clearly wrote warnings to the baptized, IN THE ONLY CHURCH that is THERE,

AND

that they were committing these serious sins

factious αἱρετικὸν hairetikos
Division / dissension διχοστασίαι ,
Schism σχίσμα, ατος, τό

SO

there is no expiration date to those sins, nor the consequences.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

True, you are NOT Catholic therefore outside Our Lord’s Church

How would you square that with this passage from scripture (Mark 9) Steve?

"38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."

Me thinks that perhaps Protestants have “given a cup of water” in His name a time or 2, no?

Did it end there? Nope!
Was there more understanding to come about that? Yep!

Why not quote along with that

Mt 7:
21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

 

[steve-b]

THAT is a dangerous response … for Protestants did the same thing when THEY left His Church.

mcq72:

By the measure that you judge you also will be judged.

Who are YOU lecturing on THAT?

I have a responsibility to defend the Church Jesus established.

BTW, you avoided giving me the name of your church.

True, you are NOT Catholic therefore outside Our Lord’s Church

mcq72:

Pure religionist and sectarian application of Katholos, of universalism. Sooo ironic.

You say:

“For those who keep the argument going? Who are THEY serving? Jesus said it’s SATAN”

You are keeping the argument going as to who is the greatest almost 2000 years after Peter and apostles laid our foundation.

I give quotes (properly referenced) from Catholic Church history, going back 2000 yrs, to answer the points being made.

 

[mcq72]

Who are YOU lecturing on THAT?

The one who judges that P’s are like those in John 6 leaving Jesus.

I am just citing a scripture, to whomever has an ear to hear.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

DUDE,

You keep making the point about either Rome is not mentioned, or Roman Catholic isn’t mentioned

I showed where Catholic Church is first used in writing

What, then, is the significance of the term “catholic church” appearing in writing?

It shows the first time the name Catholic Church appears in writing, and by whom said it,

when asked, I showed (link provided) so it was properly referenced, how the Church of Rome was said to have preeminent authority, as in authority over all Churches.

Isaac14:

And yet, your own Bishops and Theologians agreed in Chieti (statement published by the Vatican), that Rome never exercised authority over the East.

I answered that already.

Isaac14:

No reasonable Orthodox Christian today would deny that Rome had preeminence in the early church, largely, or entirely, due to their Orthodoxy, their solid faith, not just because Rome said so.

Because You don’t open links given, that give you the answer, you repeat the same old tired arguments over and over and over …

Bp Irenaeus, who used the term preeminent authority, uses THAT term for the Church of Rome, NOT the city of ROME. THAT is the CONTEXT.

AGAIN

HERE Bk 3 ch 3 vv1-3 is the context.

Note where Irenaeus says that comes from? Peter and Paul in Rome. Namely they are speaking for the Church of Rome. Which is the Catholic Church From Bk 1 ch 10 v 3

And I will say again, Bp Irenaeus and Bp Polycarp were from the same city “Smyrna”. Polycarp was a direct disciple of John the apostle. Polycarp taught Irenaeus. Making Irenaeus 1 man away from an apostle.

AND

NOTE: To Irenaeus point,
he says that the preeminent authority of the Church of Rome, was passed on to him by Peter and Paul, through the bishops of Rome in direct succession from Peter, who is the bishop of Rome, down to Irenaeus day… Irenaeus names 12 bishops down to his day…FROM Peter.

Already that genealogy of the successors to Peter is alread an important point, in dealing with heretics, namely in that day the Gnostics

AND

Rome is Peter and Paul’s final resting place.

 

[TULIPed]

So how are those 2 quotes held in tension?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Who are YOU lecturing on THAT?

The one who judges that P’s are like those in John 6 leaving Jesus.

I am just citing a scripture, to whomever has an ear to hear.

Yet, speaking of scripture & judging

consider the following

from Msgr Charles Pope and who am I to judge and in extension, How else can we be considered our brother’s keeper?

AND

Re: Protestantism,

That as I’ve posted many times, is one of the great heresies in history.

SO

One has to ask, scripturally speaking,

What does scripture say about heresy and division from the ONE Church Jesus established?

 

[steve-b]

So how are those 2 quotes held in tension?

I thought it was obvious

your point to me was to show people driving out demons in Jesus name, but NOT part of the apostles, suggests to you, division is OK Mk 9:38-39

My response back to you was

There’s more to it.

HERE Mt 7: 21-23

I bring up again

the phrase we’ve discussed in the past

ONCE / AFTER etc…someone knows the truth that phrase being said in various ways,

THEN

Things change regarding good vs bad, Re: one’s activities.

How else could Jesus completely eliminate one’s good works and say to THEM

I never knew you

HOLY COW !!!

That takes away upfront…ALL presumption one might have that they think or that they are assured, that they are on Jesus side or Jesus is on their side.

Here people are presuming, in that passage, that Jesus is on their side and Jesus says back to them, I NEVER knew you.

 

[TULIPed]

your point to me was to show people driving out demons in Jesus name , but NOT part of the apostles, suggests to you, division is OK Mk 9:38-39

Sorry, no. My point was not about division - rather the opposite. My point was that when we do things for other people in Jesus’ name together, it’s a good thing. Jesus spent way more time including people than excluding them. In fact, almost the only people he explicitly excluded were…the “Church People” of the time.

Here people are presuming, in that passage, that Jesus is on their side and Jesus says back to them, I NEVER knew you.

It’s interesting how Chapter 7 begins - “Don’t judge, lest you be judged”. We agree (I think) that we’ll be judged by God based on what we’ve done (and left undone - shout out there to my Anglican brothers and sisters).

Which brings up the second point - the people that Jesus calls out specifically in your passage are those who prophesy, cast out demons and work miracles. Odd that he leaves out those who take care of the “least of these”, visit prisoners, give sacrificially (like the widow), and generally put themselves second and others first. I wonder what Jesus will say to the people who do those sorts of things in His name (even if they’re not Catholic)?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

your point to me was to show people driving out demons in Jesus name , but NOT part of the apostles, suggests to you, division is OK Mk 9:38-39

Sorry, no. My point was not about division - rather the opposite. My point was that when we do things for other people in Jesus’ name together, it’s a good thing. Jesus spent way more time including people than excluding them. In fact, almost the only people he explicitly excluded were…the “Church People” of the time.

Here people are presuming, in that passage, that Jesus is on their side and Jesus says back to them, I NEVER knew you.

It’s interesting how Chapter 7 begins - “Don’t judge, lest you be judged”. We agree (I think) that we’ll be judged by God based on what we’ve done (and left undone - shout out there to my Anglican brothers and sisters).

Which brings up the second point - the people that Jesus calls out specifically in your passage are those who prophesy, cast out demons and work miracles. Odd that he leaves out those who take care of the “least of these”, visit prisoners, give sacrificially (like the widow), and generally put themselves second and others first. I wonder what Jesus will say to the people who do those sorts of things in His name (even if they’re not Catholic)?

Mt 7:
21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

So

to list the points Jesus makes, do these guarantee heaven?

Calling Jesus Lord ? NO
Casting out demons in Jesus name? NO
Prophesy in Jesus name? NO
DO many mighty works in Jesus name ? NO

SO

Where is the YES? The guarantee of heaven?

☞ he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.​

And we have been over those points more times than I can link to

 

[lanman87]

HERE Bk 3 ch 3 vv1-3 is the context.

Note where Irenaeus says that comes from? Peter and Paul in Rome. Namely they are speaking for the Church of Rome. Which is the Catholic Church From Bk 1 ch 10 v 3

Your putting an awful lot of faith in a document that we only have fragments from the original Greek. The first Latin translations we have were completed in 380 under Damasus I, who had political troubles and it was in his interest to prop up the Roman Church. Plus, we know from Vulgate, which was completed around the same time, had translation errors. Who’s to say that this translation wasn’t altered to help Damasus keep/gain power or was mistranslated? We can’t know for certain, without the original Greek text, but it is certainly a possibility.

Also, Irenaeus says that Roman church was founded by Peter and Paul. While it can be argued that Peter was involved in founding the Roman church the book of Romans makes it very clear that Paul had nothing to do with it. At the time of writing Romans, Paul had never preached the Gospel in Rome. Romans 1:8-15

Also, I’m interested why your link to newadvent leaves out the last line of the sentence. " that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.".

Many Historians take this last line to mean that Rome is not the source or guardian or proper doctrine but Ireneaus is, instead staying that Rome is the greatest illustration or example of apostolic tradition, that is orthodox doctrine.

 

[TULIPed]

And we have been over those points more times than I can link to

Hahahahaha - I know. It’s a slow day at the office. Have a good weekend Steve.

 

[mcq72]

direct succession from Peter , who is the bishop of Rome, down to Irenaeus day

Iranaeus says nothing of the kind if i recall…it is your interpolation…he mentions Peter and Paul as the greatest apostles, and then sucessors

 

[mcq72]

What does scripture say about heresy and division from the ONE Church Jesus established?

Like I said earlier, prayer for repentance of such things for CC leaders, to cross the Thames.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

HERE Bk 3 ch 3 vv1-3 is the context.

Note where Irenaeus says that comes from? Peter and Paul in Rome. Namely they are speaking for the Church of Rome. Which is the Catholic Church From Bk 1 ch 10 v 3

Your putting an awful lot of faith in a document that we only have fragments from the original Greek. The first Latin translations we have were completed in 380 under Damasus I, who had political troubles and it was in his interest to prop up the Roman Church. Plus, we know from Vulgate, which was completed around the same time, had translation errors. Who’s to say that this translation wasn’t altered to help Damasus keep/gain power or was mistranslated? We can’t know for certain, without the original Greek text, but it is certainly a possibility.

Also, Irenaeus says that Roman church was founded by Peter and Paul. While it can be argued that Peter was involved in founding the Roman church the book of Romans makes it very clear that Paul had nothing to do with it. At the time of writing Romans, Paul had never preached the Gospel in Rome. Romans 1:8-15

Peter and Paul did not sit still. They moved around. So did the people they taught, and in particular, the people they ordained, moved around

That said

Your argument I would suggest, undercuts too far and too much.

While

The fact original docs don’t exist anymore because of the type of materials the originals were written on, would likewise cause problems for your own argument defending the scriptures. The originals don’t exist for THEM either. How then do you know what is real and what is not? How do you even defend 27 books of the NT?

Point being

The world wouldn’t know anything about the scriptures if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church.

The writers of the NT were already in the Church they were writing to and for. Namely they were in the Catholic Church. The only Church that has ALL the promises of Jesus.

lanman87:

Also, I’m interested why your link to newadvent leaves out the last line of the sentence. " that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.".

that sentence is also listed here under Irenaeus What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession | Catholic Answers.

It doesn’t change anything… except for those who can’t claim apostolic succession.

Gee, where have we addressed THAT in the past

lanman87:

Many Historians take this last line to mean that Rome is not the source or guardian or proper doctrine but Ireneaus is, instead staying that Rome is the greatest illustration or example of apostolic tradition, that is orthodox doctrine.

You certainly aren’t suggesting types like James White etc are you?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

direct succession from Peter , who is the bishop of Rome, down to Irenaeus day

Iranaeus says nothing of the kind if i recall…it is your interpolation…he mentions Peter and Paul as the greatest apostles, and then sucessors

And then successors to WHOM? … PETER

Don 't commit this to your memory, open the link I gave

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What does scripture say about heresy and division from the ONE Church Jesus established?

Like I said earlier, prayer for repentance of such things for CC leaders, to ,cross the Thames.

Wrong River.

Now do we finally know what stripe of Protestant you are ?.

 

[lanman87]

he originals don’t exist for THEM either. How then do you know what is real and what is not? How do you even defend 27 books of the NT?

By the sheer number of Greek manuscripts for the New Testament books, many of which are dated in the early 2nd Century. The New Testament books were copied over and over and over again. Irenaeus, not so much.

 

[lanman87]

The world wouldn’t know anything about the scriptures if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church.

Sure they would, because the early catholic church and the later Roman Catholic church aren’t the same thing.