The Universal Church

[mcq72]

One IS over the other(s). Because that is how Jesus established Peter to be

Only in your (CC) paradigm, your definition of lead, as in only being over, your biblical and historical interpretation.

You have not held back on telling it how you see it, nor shall I. Jesus warned of lording over as the world does. The CC abuse and lust of power has led to the very schism Paul warned about.

 

[mcq72]

Do you think the Bishops and theologians involved in the dialogue see it as having no value?

If I were hard liner or cynical, there is always value in possibility from CC perspective, for Orthodox to become (Roman) Catholic.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Selective quoting recognized

No where in these resent documents; Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, as well as the Balamand Statement, does the Catholic Church even elude to the Orthodox as:

What happened in the East long after Ignatius wrote what you quoted, are those bishops who got sifted by SATAN and remained sifted to this day . THOSE are the ones who are called Orthodox .

ZP

Schism is schism. For 1000 yrs, it is the elephant in the room.

All the ecumenical speak considered, all the good hopes considered, what has changed?

Re: Unitatis Redintegratio ,
let’s not overlook #3 in UR i

Re: Ut Unum Sint, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

“It is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all the content of the revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the body of Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the light’ (John 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of truth?” ( Ut Unum Sint 18).

Re: the Balamand Document http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...d-uniatism-union-and-search-for-communion.cfm

What is it you’d like to specify in that document?

They are ALL wonderful attempts at trying to solve the problem of schism. AND it’s an ongoing process.

 

[ziapueblo]

Schism is schism.

Yup, and Saint Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint speaks of it as mutual. I’ll post again, even though you may feel I’m cherry-picking:

Selective quoting recognized

“Unfortunately, however, the gradual and mutual estrangement between the Churches of the West and the East deprived them of the benefits of mutual exchanges and cooperation.”

What is it you’d like to specify in that document?

Because, just as you say, it’s part of a continued dialogue toward full communion between East and West.

ZP

 

[mcq72]

"In the body of Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the light’ " UUS18

In my opinion, such a perversion, that Christ is that perfect light, yet here the body equated to the church equated to perfect Truth in a particular church? Oh Christ is that perfect light, perfect everything unconditionally, but the body, the Bride, is yet being perfected and not above correction.

Again such a fine line about who we testify is our Savior. Just how much do we wrap our testimony up in a particular church over another one, and how much in Him? Is this the same indignation Paul felt when he said " I am glad I did not baptize any of you"?

"who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of truth?” UUS 18

And who legitimizes their truth at the expense of how we already are reconciled together in Christ?

“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?” lanman87

Who dare legitimize themselves by anathemizing the affirmative to the above opening question of this very thread? Is that not already compromising the truth?

Can a catholic church remain universal/ catholic with such anathemizing?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Orthodoxy officially happened around the yr 1045 or so.

The Great Schism was in 1054 .

 

[mcq72]

Here is my post from another thread (did Peter create the CC)in response to proposition that non Catholics are not part of the universal church Christ founded, like how can a church be universal/ catholic if it rejects part of the whole? Is it enough to say we are not part of the whole to begin with?:

The incongruence begins. To me it is telling of the faultiness of the original proposition.

Reminds me of the quagmire of abortion. On one hand a doctor can terminate the life in a mothers womb and its just a legal abortion. On the other hand a man assaults the pregnant mother causing the unborn baby to die and it’s murder. Schizoid.Incongruent legal thought.
Like we are torn between the truth and justifying what we want .

So on one definition of church we are excluded. By another definition/ decree we are brethren, how be it imperfectly united or not in fullness. Therefore we must be a community, but can not be a church. Therefore we have saving graces but are in peril having no valid eucharist or reconcilliation/ confession. We are to be true to our God given conscience and convictions, yet if we knowingly refuse the CC per same convictions we are in peril.

Something is wrong when tongue speaks out of both sides of the mouth.

Reminds me a bit of the unclarity of Peter towards gentiles that Paul had to correct.

On one hand you have your hardliners, that literally there is no salvation outside the CC. On the other you have realists who have eyes and ears to see the spiritual life in Christ in non Roman Catholics, and a somewhat faulty or problematic biblical and historical basis to reject them.

 

[Tommy999]

In my experience, the more conservative and traditionalist Catholics are the ones who exclude non-Catholic Christians from their paradigm of what a true Christian is. In essence, their view is unchanged as if we were still living in the 1500’s.

In contrast, the more Vatican II-accepting Catholics who are likely converts or who have been exposed to non-Catholic Christianity are often more accepting and the ones who often view non-Catholic Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ.

It’s kind of like having a half-brother. One sibling may not consider the half-brother true family because they do not share the entire same DNA.

On the other hand, another sibling might look at the brother as true family because what they have in common (Jesus Christ) is more consequential than what they don’t have in common.

 

[mcq72]

And to be fair, i suppose Protestants have some hard liners also towards Catholic Church.etc, .

 

[Tommy999]

Very true. Some hardline Protestants that I know are extremely narrow minded and uncharitable

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

One IS over the other(s). Because that is how Jesus established Peter to be

Only in your (CC) paradigm, your definition of lead, as in only being over, your biblical and historical interpretation.

You have not held back on telling it how you see it, nor shall I. Jesus warned of lording over as the world does. The CC abuse and lust of power has led to the very schism Paul warned about.

My paradigm? My definition(s), how I see it?

The difference here is, I give my references, copiously referenced, and they are ALL properly referenced.

So it is NOT my paradigm, NOT my definition(s), and if/when I say, this is how I see it, THEN it’s fair to say what follows is my personal opinion…

 

[Isaac14]

My paradigm? My definition(s), how I see it?

The difference here is, I give my references, copiously referenced, and they are ALL properly referenced.

So it is NOT my paradigm, NOT my definition(s), and if/when I say, this is how I see it, THEN it’s fair to say what follows is my personal opinion…

Given this statement, are you providing us with the Catholic Church’s position on the topics at hand?

 

[mcq72]

So it is NOT my paradigm, NOT my definition(s), and if/when I say, this is how I see it, THEN it’s fair to say what follows is my personal opinion…

Oh please spare the technicalities…as if i thought something other than you representing the CC the best you can…as if the third party (CC)isnt understood, as if your opinion differs in from the CC in your opinion.

Never the less I will easily change the “you’s” to CC’s…except time elapsed for edit…and by the way, I was careful to place the CC in parenthesis next to “you” to show just that, you and the CC paradigm. Please inform me if you disagree with me placing you in accord with CC on said topic. If you want me to say, “You state that the CC states…” instead of, “You (CC) state” I suppose I think I can if my economy with words is misunderstood.

Anyways, that is one way for you to discard my post. Perhaps it was a truthful but unwise post.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Schism is schism.

Yup, and Saint Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint speaks of it as mutual. I’ll post again, even though you may feel I’m cherry-picking:

Mutual is mentioned 24 times in that doc,

in these ways , some in repeated fashion

Mutual misunderstanding x 2
Mutual forgiveness x 2
Mutual brotherhood
Mutual relations x 2
Mutual opposition
Mutual knowledge x 2
Mutually recognized (baptism)
Mutual openness
Mutual excommunication
Mutual estrangement
Mutual exchanges x 2
Mutual agreement
Mutual esteem
Mutual understanding x 2
Mutual interactions
Mutual respect
Mutual help
Mutual enrichment

SO

looking at the current status of things, vs looking back over 1000 yrs, schism is still there.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Orthodoxy officially happened around the yr 1045 or so.

The Great Schism was in 1054 .

I knew I was close

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

"In the body of Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the light’ " UUS18

In my opinion, such a perversion, that Christ is that perfect light, yet here the body equated to the church equated to perfect Truth in a particular church? Oh Christ is that perfect light, perfect everything unconditionally, but the body, the Bride, is yet being perfected and not above correction.

Again such a fine line about who we testify is our Savior. Just how much do we wrap our testimony up in a particular church over another one, and how much in Him? Is this the same indignation Paul felt when he said " I am glad I did not baptize any of you"?

"who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of truth?” UUS 18

And who legitimizes their truth at the expense of how we already are reconciled together in Christ?

“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?” lanman87

Who dare legitimize themselves by anathemizing the affirmative to the above opening question of this very thread? Is that not already compromising the truth?

Can a catholic church remain universal/ catholic with such anathemizing?

There’s only ONE Church that Jesus gave all His promises to. THAT is the Church He gives Peter, the Rock, the keys to.
Acts 9:31 = ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς = The kataholos church = the Catholic Church with Peter as the leader, with all those in perfect union with Peter, just as Jesus wills.

Why would I presume all the manmade inventions that came after that could even argue rationally that THEY can usurp those promises for themselves against the will of perfect unity Jesus not just suggests but commands.

 

[Isaac14]

Acts 9:31 = ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς = The kataholos church = the Catholic Church with Peter as the leader,

“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭9:31‬ ‭RSV‬‬

How do you get the Catholic Church is led by Peter from that verse?!?!?!

 

[steve-b]

Here is my post from another thread (did Peter create the CC)in response to proposition that non Catholics are not part of the universal church Christ founded, like how can a church be universal/ catholic if it rejects part of the whole? Is it enough to say we are not part of the whole to begin with?:

The incongruence begins. To me it is telling of the faultiness of the original proposition.

Reminds me of the quagmire of abortion. [snip for space]

So on one definition of church we are excluded. By another definition/ decree we are brethren, how be it imperfectly united or not in fullness. Therefore we must be a community, but can not be a church. Therefore we have saving graces but are in peril having no valid eucharist or reconcilliation/ confession…[snip for space].

Something is wrong when tongue speaks out of both sides of the mouth.

I don’t disagree, Ecumenical speak, can deliver the wrong message at times, particularly to those who have a tendency to twist everything in the wrong direction, that they hear anyway.

mcq72:

Reminds me a bit of the unclarity of Peter towards gentiles that Paul had to correct.

Actually, Paul adapted for himself and what he taught, THAT which he criticized Peter for.

Example:

Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him.

Now look at what Paul did

In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised.

Then

Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
Catch that? Paul rebukes Peter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself…

mcq72:

On one hand you have your hardliners, that literally there is no salvation outside the CC. On the other you have realists who have eyes and ears to see the spiritual life in Christ in non Roman Catholics, and a somewhat faulty or problematic biblical and historical basis to reject them.

Re: hardliner

Aren’t we constantly told Jesus is a softy… by all kinds of people of different stripes?

SO

How then, can Jesus, who judges EVERYBODY, if He really is a softy, say

few are saved ?

meaning everyone else is NOT saved, ergo they don’t go to heaven, but go to Hell

Is Jesus a hard liner?

 

[ziapueblo]

Mutual estrangement

But the context in which it is used here:

“Unfortunately, however, the gradual and mutual estrangement between the Churches of the West and the East deprived them of the benefits of mutual exchanges and cooperation.”

“Speaking of the lack of unity among Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that ‘people on both sides were to blame’, and acknowledges that responsibility can not be attributed only to the ‘other side’.”

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Acts 9:31 = ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς = The kataholos church = the Catholic Church with Peter as the leader,

“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭9:31‬ ‭RSV‬‬

How do you get the Catholic Church is led by Peter from that verse?!?!?!

Really?

"Church" is only mentioned twice in the Gospels.

1st reference Mt 16:15-19

Who builds His Church? Jesus
Who /what does Jesus build His Church on? Rock,
Jesus changes Simon’s name to Rock
Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of God (the Church)
Whatever Peter binds and looses with those keys are bound and loosed in the kingdom.
How long is the Church to survive? Not even the gates of hell will prevail against it.

So

IOW no expiration date on this promise.

2nd reference Mt 18:15-17

Same Church as Acts 9:31, Same promises… with Peter as the leader of all. Wherever Peter is there is the Catholic Church.