The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

To the fourth century belong the earliest extant Biblical manuscripts of anything but fragmentary size. … except for the Egyptian papyri, none of the works copied in ancient times has come down to us, and our oldest manuscripts date only from the beginning of the fourth century.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

News flash, they’re the same​

Paul’s letter to the Romans, was written to the Church of Rome.

AND

It is still here today, with pope Francis 266th successor to St Peter at the helm.

AND

When Paul wrote His letter to the Church of Rome, in ~55 a.d., this Church had not only already been there, but it’s reputation, Paul had been touting for yrs.

Rm 1: 5-13
… Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;

7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.[c] 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers,10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.[d] 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest[e] among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.

I’ll just say, no scratch that, Paul says

1. Obedience of faith is what the Church of Rome is known for
2. Their faith is proclaimed in all the world
3. Paul is even encouraged by their faith

So

You should check your sources more carefully next time, cause Ya got some bad info.

 

[NoelFitz]

This is a spinoff from a topic in another thread.

Are those that have faith in Christ, have been made new creations, are indwelled with the Holy Spirit and worship and serve God by loving God and loving others, members of the universal church/the body of Christ? Even if they are not part of the Catholic church and worship/serve elsewhere?

‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’ has been Church teaching, yet everyone can be saved. Hence I would claim everyone is a Catholic, having baptism of desire, that is they would be baptized if they believed.
How is this for a theory?

 

[steve-b]

lanman87:

This is a spinoff from a topic in another thread.

Are those that have faith in Christ, have been made new creations, are indwelled with the Holy Spirit and worship and serve God by loving God and loving others, members of the universal church/the body of Christ? Even if they are not part of the Catholic church and worship/serve elsewhere?

'Outside the Church there is no salvation’ has been Church teaching, yet everyone can be saved. Hence I would claim everyone is a Catholic, having baptism of desire, that is they would be baptized if they believed.
How is this for a theory?

Can be ≠ Will be

Universalism / Apocatastasis Universalists | Catholic Answers

AND

Everybody goes to heaven? Do All People Go to Heaven? | Catholic Answers

 

[mcq72]

I never knew you
That takes away upfront…ALL presumption one might have

Presumption of what? Good works?..for sure. Church membership, affiliation?..for sure. Rituals, sacraments?.. for sure

 

[Isaac14]

Universalism / Apocatastasis Universalists | Catholic Answers

AND

Everybody goes to heaven? https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-all-people-go-to-heaven

I don’t think Noel was making a point in favor of universalism or that all will go to heaven. Do you feel the need the need to refute everyone no matter what they say?

 

[mcq72]

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

Correct. You are preachin to the choir.

Nicodemus the rabbi was one who thought he was right with God but was not. Even today a priest or nun could be in same shoes.

One needs to be born again.

One needs to receive the Holy Spirit, even Jesus, for themselves. They can not ride the coatails of their fathers, or their tradition, or church, or rituals.
They must buy the Oil for their lamps from the Giver themselves, thereby making the acquainance in the highest sense.

One can not be like the priests of old, and cite their history and relation to father Abraham as justification while missing the point of the need to be born of the Spirit.

 

[mcq72]

And then successors to WHOM? … PETER

Well i guess Iranaeus forgot to mention such distinction apart from Paul.

• Obedience of faith is what the Church of Rome is known for
• Their faith is proclaimed in all the world
• Paul is even encouraged by their faith

Amen. So it was.

As you know one must persevere, even a church.

Paul mentions zero unconditionality of all future obedience. He did not teach once right always right but the contrary. His letters and travels were precisely to help them stay on straight and narrow way.

 

[mcq72]

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

Does it matter if you deny us the full benefit of His stripes?

 

[Wannano]

steve-b:

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

Correct. You are preachin to the choir.

Nicodemus the rabbi was one who thought he was right with God but was not. Even today a priest or nun could be in same shoes.

One needs to be born again.

One needs to receive the Holy Spirit, even Jesus, for themselves. They can not ride the coatails of their fathers, or their tradition, or church, or rituals.
They must buy the Oil for their lamps from the Giver themselves, thereby making the acquainance in the highest sense.

One can not be like the priests of old, and cite their history and relation to father Abraham as justification while missing the point of the need to be born of the Spirit.

Mmmhmm, that’s right…preachit brother! :hugs:

 

[lanman87]

Paul’s letter to the Romans, was written to the Church of Rome .

He also wrote to other churches like Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, and Thessalonica . Are they any less Catholic than the Roman church?

Sola Roma, Rome Alone was not apostolic teaching. It was developed over centuries.

 

[lanman87]

When Paul wrote His letter to the Church of Rome, in ~55 a.d., this Church had not only already been there, but it’s reputation, Paul had been touting for yrs.

I agree, but he also hadn’t yet visited Rome and was not one of the people who “founded and organized” the church at Rome. I wonder how Irenaeus got it wrong?

 

[lanman87]

To the fourth century belong the earliest extant Biblical manuscripts of anything but fragmentary size. … except for the Egyptian papyri, none of the works copied in ancient times has come down to us, and our oldest manuscripts date only from the beginning of the fourth century.

You are missing the point. We have multiple copies of the manuscripts in Greek, with very little textual variance. Due to the fact we have multiple copies from multiple regions with little textual variance is a testament to the authenticity of the writings.

We don’t have that same level of verification for Irenaeus, as all the Greek text were lost. All we have is a Latin translation that was oversaw by someone with vested interest in Rome being the preeminent authority.

Plus, even if it is translated properly, it is just the opinion of one man. You have to compare it to what others believed. Would the other Bishops agree with Irenaeus? Obviously not, since the Eastern Churches only bowed to Rome in the 6th Century when circumstances forced them to, and stopped bowing to Rome as soon as those circumstances changed.

 

[Wannano]

steve-b:

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

Does it matter if you deny us the full benefit of His stripes?

That’s right…it appears his desire is to put you in a box that he can self righteously look upon and be thankful he is not “like that other man.”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

Correct. You are preachin to the choir.

Nicodemus the rabbi was one who thought he was right with God but was not. Even today a priest or nun could be in same shoes.

One needs to be born again.

Everyone who has been baptized, by definition, has been born again.

Wannano:

One needs to receive the Holy Spirit, even Jesus, for themselves. They can not ride the coatails of their fathers, or their tradition, or church, or rituals.

Everyone who has been baptized , by definition, has received the Father, Son, & HS.

AND

Everyone who receives a valid Eucharist receives Jesus.

Wannano:

They must buy the Oil for their lamps from the Giver themselves, thereby making the acquainance in the highest sense.

One can not be like the priests of old, and cite their history and relation to father Abraham as justification while missing the point of the need to be born of the Spirit.

NOR

by definition, be in schism, heresy, or any other mortal sin, when they die

OR

they won’t be going to heaven

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

Does it matter if you deny us the full benefit of His stripes?

No one forces you to be divided. That is your personal choice that you make voluntarily.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To the fourth century belong the earliest extant Biblical manuscripts of anything but fragmentary size. … except for the Egyptian papyri, none of the works copied in ancient times has come down to us, and our oldest manuscripts date only from the beginning of the fourth century.

You are missing the point. We have multiple copies of the manuscripts in Greek, with very little textual variance. Due to the fact we have multiple copies from multiple regions with little textual variance is a testament to the authenticity of the writings.

Who told you that? Reference?

lanman87:

We don’t have that same level of verification for Irenaeus, as all the Greek text were lost.
All we have is a Latin translation that was oversaw by someone with vested interest in Rome being the preeminent authority.

News Flash

Irenaeus was a Catholic Bishop. He was in full communion with the chair of Peter. Peter’s last see was Rome. Therefore, THAT is the context of Irenaeus mentioning Rome. Because that is where Peter’s succession comes from, for the bishops who follow Peter.

That won’t change.

lanman87:

Plus, even if it is translated properly, it is just the opinion of one man. You have to compare it to what others believed. Would the other Bishops agree with Irenaeus? Obviously not, since the Eastern Churches only bowed to Rome in the 6th Century when circumstances forced them to, and stopped bowing to Rome as soon as those circumstances changed.

For your information

Irenaeus was from the East. Smyrna, his home town, is in today, Turkey. Same as Bp Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. Bp Ignatius was from Antioch, that is in Syria, which as you know is in the East. Ignatius was also a direct disciple of John the apostle. Irenaeus came West and became bishop of Lyon, (France). This East / West division we see later, wasn’t the issue THEN.

AND

THIS time in history we’re talking about, is ALL WAY WAY before there was the schism that brought about the “Orthodox Churches” .

 

[mcq72]

No one forces you to be divided. That is your personal choice that you make voluntarily.

Well thank you for the obvious, because it has not been always so free in the past, for both of us to lay out division.

There is a time to follow and a time to get thee out. We follow the better part that you had but have forgotten, laid aside, choked out, befuddled.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And then successors to WHOM? … PETER

Well i guess Iranaeus forgot to mention such distinction apart from Paul.

• Obedience of faith is what the Church of Rome is known for
• Their faith is proclaimed in all the world
• Paul is even encouraged by their faith

Amen. So it was.

As you know one must persevere, even a church.

And the Catholic Church, with Peter as the leader, has been here for 2000 yrs.

mcq72:

Paul mentions zero unconditionality of all future obedience. He did not teach once right always right but the contrary. His letters and travels were precisely to help them stay on straight and narrow way.

True. One’s obedience to faith is to persevere till the end. No guarantee one will persevere till the end…

AND

When schism, heresy, and all other mortal sins appear, they are condemned, as they are to be condemned.

 

[mcq72]

Irenaeus was from the East. Smyrna, his home town, is in today, Turkey. Same as Bp Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. Bp Ignatius was from Antioch, that is in Syria, which as you know is in the East. Ignatius was also a direct disciple of John the apostle. Irenaeus came West and became bishop of Lyon, (France). This East / West division we see later, wasn’t the issue THEN .

I aggree with this, as I read his origins and places of ministry. True east/ west wasnt a thing yet, not even politically yet. What was political was Rome being the center of civilazation, power,influence etc . Tough to push this aside by saying it didnt affect the church in its power jurisdictional plight. I mean is it coincidence that when civil Rome split east / west the church began to also? Are we reading into Iranaeus a bit more to this Rome supremacy beyond Peter and Paul having founded the church (which they did not)? Is Iranaeus buying into or using to his advantage against empire spread gnosticism the glory that was Rome? Certainly a temptation, and one that would bear out later in history.

One must also not be so narrow to only an east west dynamic, for there were certainly more than just two patriarchs that developed ( 4?). Certainly Iranaeus seems to have been associated with Rome’s patriarchy mostly in his church duties in nearby France.

I have no problem with with Iranaeus, as i think Orthodox dont either. We do not see any slam dunk evidence for justifying papal supremacy jurisdictionally except by misinterpretation or anochronistically.