The Universal Church

[Wannano]

lanman87:

Wannano:

Is this not the Universal Church?

Yes, Biblically the catholic/universal church is all who are God’s People. The “called out ones”. As given evidence by a living faith in Christ and displaying the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit.

I know I’m part of the catholic/universal church because “The Spirit testifies with my spirit that I am a Child of God”. Romans 8:16. No matter what any pope or preacher or prophet says they can’t take that away from me. And that is how I know the Roman church is wrong in its definition of “Catholic church”. What Pope Francis did today was acknowledge that fact, in his actions, even if his words contradict what he is doing.

The HS isn’t behind division from the Only Church Jesus established on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter. Only one Church qualifies. The Catholic Church

Don’t take my word for it.

Jesus said Re: the HS

The HS doesn’t speak on His own John 16:12-15 RSVCE - “I have yet many things to say to - Bible Gateway

Jesus wants perfect unity John 17:20-23 RSVCE - “I do not pray for these only, but - Bible Gateway

Therefore the HS only teaches what Jesus gives Him to say.

So

Once anyone becomes knowledgeable of the truth

THAT

is why scripture condemns schism and heresy etc FROM our Lord’s Church and ALL those who are in these sins … Ergo no heaven for them when/ if, they die in those sins.

Why does Pope Francis ask all those hell bound divisive people to join in prayer then?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Ask him.

 

[gohjedrek]

Take C. S. Lewis as an example. A former pupil and long-time friend of Lewis’s, Christopher Derrick, noted in C. S. Lewis and the Church of Rome that while Lewis was a creative defender of Christianity in general, his reasons for not being a Catholic, to the extent Lewis made these known, were pedestrian.

It is difficult to discern why he doesn’t want to be roman catholic, but a good understanding is that he was pro-ecumenical (did not believe that other christian denominations are wrong as long as they affirm the trinity), he had opposing views to papal infallibility (believe that reason is essential - part of the anglican three legged stool) and marian doctrines (believe that it conflicts with belief in Jesus). He had a high-anglican view of the faith, so my guess is he would probably go to a traditional anglican church outside the communion, the orthodox church or the ordinariate.

ergo after study of history, you make Newman’s point… true?

I think newman’s point is largely true but not absolute. If one really study history, it is easier to accept that tradition is a fundamental aspect of revealing truth than to reject that tradition is a non-fundamental aspect of revealing truth. This of course, leads to varying degrees of answers, you can have people who decide to convert towards eastern orthodox, anglicanism and even methodism. The less common conversion are towards reformed evangelism and atheism. I don’t think he is absolute because there are also many that study something in order to disprove what they study or to take the counter-point, but I would put conversion in that order.

As for myself, what really is authentic? I can’t really say for sure what church I can clearly find a position with. While I appreciated the reformed for their emphasis on fellowship and community growth, I disagree largely on the theology and liturgy of the reformed. While I appreciated the charismatics for their emphasis on spirituality, I disagree with their view on scripture. While I appreciated catholic and orthodox for their emphasis on individual growth and liturgy, I disagree with the aspect of community growth and minor aspects of the theology. One thing I can affirm is that conservatism is the answer for me, whether one is evangelical, catholic, orthodox or anglican, etc. Being strictly conservative on the faith, is the right way forward. I see myself with a mix of beliefs between the traditional anglican/catholic/orthodox circles.

 

[Wannano]

Ask him.

I will if you can kindly provide me with contact information. Thanks.

 

[Isaac14]

The issue is over one’s “disposition”" at the time of receiving.

If one is properly disposed. THAT is the main point. If one is insistent on being in schism, that is a bad disposition to be in.

One can’t just walk off the street and receive the Eucharist licitly. If one is in mortal sin they should NOT receive the Eucharist.

Steve, please correct me if I am misunderstanding things based on the properly referenced sources you’ve quoted:

1. Orthodox Christians are in mortal schism due to schism (i.e. rejecting communion with the Pope)
2. Those in mortal sin shall not receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church
3. For an Orthodox Christian to remove the mortal sin of schism would require them to confess and enter communion with the Pope, and consequently ceasing to be Orthodox.
4. Proper disposition is required to receive the Eucharist, including having no mortal sin.
5. The Catholic Church makes exceptions in Canon 844 (and explained by a statement from the USCCB) for the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, presuming such Orthodox Christians are properly disposed.

Help me understand why if statements 1, 2, 3, & 4 are true, the Catholic Church would even need to make exception (i.e. statement 5)?

 

[lanman87]

Since Peter’s see is Rome, and Jesus wants perfect union with Peter and those in perfect union with Peter, then THAT is what the HS will teach.

Not if your wrong. And I believe you are. Christianity is about Christ, not Peter and not his (supposed) successors

The way I know your interpretations and understanding of scripture aren’t correct is that Christ lives i me by the Power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t need the Roman church or a Pope for me to be in a relationship with Christ. If you claim that I do, then you are the one being divisive.

 

[steve-b]

The issue is over one’s “disposition”" at the time of receiving.

Isaac14:

Steve, please correct me if I am misunderstanding things based on the properly referenced sources you’ve quoted:

1. Orthodox Christians are in mortal schism due to schism (i.e. rejecting communion with the Pope)
2. Those in mortal sin shall not receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church
3. For an Orthodox Christian to remove the mortal sin of schism would require them to confess and enter communion with the Pope, and consequently ceasing to be Orthodox.
4. Proper disposition is required to receive the Eucharist, including having no mortal sin.
5. The Catholic Church makes exceptions in Canon 844 (and explained by a statement from the USCCB) for the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, presuming such Orthodox Christians are properly disposed.

Help me understand why if statements 1, 2, 3, & 4 are true, the Catholic Church would even need to make exception (i.e. statement 5)?

Re: Can 844

it has 5 sections

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon,

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord,

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

SO

RE: proper disposition = http://dioscg.org/being-properly-disposed-to-receive-holy-communion/

It seems , you don’t understand the conditions, nor proper disposition spoken of

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

lanman87:

Wannano:

Is this not the Universal Church?

Yes, Biblically the catholic/universal church is all who are God’s People. The “called out ones”. As given evidence by a living faith in Christ and displaying the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit.

I know I’m part of the catholic/universal church because “The Spirit testifies with my spirit that I am a Child of God”. Romans 8:16. No matter what any pope or preacher or prophet says they can’t take that away from me. And that is how I know the Roman church is wrong in its definition of “Catholic church”. What Pope Francis did today was acknowledge that fact, in his actions, even if his words contradict what he is doing.

The HS isn’t behind division from the Only Church Jesus established on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter. Only one Church qualifies. The Catholic Church

Don’t take my word for it.

Jesus said Re: the HS

The HS doesn’t speak on His own John 16:12-15 RSVCE - “I have yet many things to say to - Bible Gateway

Jesus wants perfect unity John 17:20-23 RSVCE - “I do not pray for these only, but - Bible Gateway

Therefore the HS only teaches what Jesus gives Him to say.

So

Once anyone becomes knowledgeable of the truth

THAT

is why scripture condemns schism and heresy etc FROM our Lord’s Church and ALL those who are in these sins … Ergo no heaven for them when/ if, they die in those sins.

Why does Pope Francis ask all those hell bound divisive people to join in prayer then?

For their own good

 

[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?

Pope Francis invited Christians of every denomination to join in prayer today. Christians from every church and community.

Is this not the Universal Church?

The operative word there is NOT

Look,

Ecumenical speak considered,

Said simply,

The CC sees Protestants, officially, regardless of stripe, as ecclesial communities, NOT Churches.

 

[MichaelP3]

The CC sees Protestants, officially, regardless of stripe, as ecclesial communities, NOT Churches

This is a point where I believe you are correctly promoting Catholic belief. It is however a sad proclamation which just emphasis the notion of “we are right and you are wrong” in the name of “truth” which should garner little respect if any at all in this specific instance.

 

[steve-b]

Wannano:

Is this not the Universal Church?

Yes, Biblically the catholic/universal church is all who are God’s People. The “called out ones”. As given evidence by a living faith in Christ and displaying the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit.

I know I’m part of the catholic/universal church because “The Spirit testifies with my spirit that I am a Child of God”. Romans 8:16. No matter what any pope or preacher or prophet says they can’t take that away from me. And that is how I know the Roman church is wrong in its definition of “Catholic church”. What Pope Francis did today was acknowledge that fact, in his actions, even if his words contradict what he is doing.

The HS isn’t the author of Heresy and confusion or those who effect it or keep it going.
The HS isn’t the author of schism dissension, division, or is He behind those who keep it going…

Scripturally speaking

Once one is shown the truth, and refuses to act on it, as in All those in division and heresy, and won’t come back into complete union with Our Lord’s Church, The Catholic Church, won’t see heaven.

THAT

Is from scripture, Tradition, and the constant teaching of the Church. I’ve posted the references tons of times , that describe those sins, and the consequences for the ones in those sins at the end of their life…

 

[MichaelP3]

Once one is shown the truth, and refuses to act on it, as in All those in division and heresy, and won’t come back into complete union with Our Lord’s Church, The Catholic Church, won’t see heaven.

You have posted this many times but you have still not addressed the notion of “LEGITIMATE disagreement with it” or is that not possible?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The CC sees Protestants, officially, regardless of stripe, as ecclesial communities, NOT Churches

This is a point where I believe you are correctly promoting Catholic belief. It is however a sad proclamation which just emphasis the notion of “we are right and you are wrong” in the name of “truth” which should garner little respect if any at all in this specific instance.

This is why, when asked of Jesus, is it true only a few are saved? Jesus looking forward in time, validated it.

Jesus said few are saved

AND

Few are saved

MichaelP3:

You have posted this many times but you have still not addressed the notion of “LEGITIMATE disagreement with it” or is that not possible?

The sources I quoted didn’t / don’t accept that notion of disagreement, as a valid response.

Paul gave someone he corrects 2 chances to change. After that he’s done with them.

AND

Paul taught his Bp Titus to do the same

Example:

Re: Heresy / divisive./ schism αἱρετικὸν ,

AND

Titus 3:10-11

 

[MichaelP3]

The sources I quoted didn’t / don’t accept that notion of disagreement, as a valid response.

Paul gave someone he corrects 2 chances to change. After that he’s done with them.

Well then excuse my ignorance because if you truly believe (and obviously many would dispute that) you are following Paul in this (which many would think you are totally missing the bus and wait for it …disagree with you) what are you still doing here?

 

[MichaelP3]

This is why, when asked of Jesus, is it true only a few are saved? Jesus looking forward in time, validated it.

Jesus said few are saved

AND

Few are saved

That’s not a response but then again. The statement didn’t require one either.

 

[lanman87]

Is from scripture, Tradition, and the constant teaching of the Church. I’ve posted the references tons of times , that describe those sins, and the consequences for the ones in those sins at the end of their life…

Well, I (and many 100 of millions of others) believe your interpretation of scripture is wrong, your understanding the tradition taught by the apostles is wrong, and, consequently, your church is wrong.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Take C. S. Lewis as an example. A former pupil and long-time friend of Lewis’s, Christopher Derrick, noted in C. S. Lewis and the Church of Rome that while Lewis was a creative defender of Christianity in general, his reasons for not being a Catholic, to the extent Lewis made these known, were pedestrian.

It is difficult to discern why he doesn’t want to be roman catholic, but a good understanding is that he was pro-ecumenical (did not believe that other christian denominations are wrong as long as they affirm the trinity), he had opposing views to papal infallibility (believe that reason is essential

ergo after study of history, you make Newman’s point… true?

I think newman’s point is largely true but not absolute. If one really study history, it is easier to accept that tradition is a fundamental aspect of revealing truth than to reject that tradition is a non-fundamental aspect of revealing truth. This of course, leads to varying degrees of answers, you can have people who decide to convert towards eastern orthodox, anglicanism and even methodism.

Newman argued against that

gohjedrek:

As for myself, what really is authentic? I can’t really say for sure what church I can clearly find a position with. While I appreciated the reformed for their emphasis on fellowship and community growth, I disagree largely on the theology and liturgy of the reformed. While I appreciated the charismatics for their emphasis on spirituality, I disagree with their view on scripture. While I appreciated catholic and orthodox for their emphasis on individual growth and liturgy, I disagree with the aspect of community growth and minor aspects of the theology. One thing I can affirm is that conservatism is the answer for me, whether one is evangelical, catholic, orthodox or anglican, etc. Being strictly conservative on the faith, is the right way forward. I see myself with a mix of beliefs between the traditional anglican/catholic/orthodox circles.

I am Catholic in the Catholic Church because Jesus is the one who established it, on Peter and those who are in perfect union with Peter.

EVERYTHING else is purely a corruption of Jesus own prayer

Jn 17:
20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

See the unconditional condition there?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Is from scripture, Tradition, and the constant teaching of the Church. I’ve posted the references tons of times , that describe those sins, and the consequences for the ones in those sins at the end of their life…

Well, I (and many 100 of millions of others) believe your interpretation of scripture is wrong, your understanding the tradition taught by the apostles is wrong, and, consequently, your church is wrong.

The Catholic Church goes back to the apostles. And the evidence is all in writing.

 

[lanman87]

The Catholic Church goes back to the apostles. And the evidence is all in writing.

The Universal church goes back to the apostles. Not the church that became the Roman Catholic church.

 

[MichaelP3]

It almost makes one wonder what is the meaning of the word “catholic” before it became a Proper “claimed” noun .