The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Why would Jesus use the following example…and say it this way?

Lk 13:

Yes, Jesus here is rebuking and warning Jewish religious leaders, that were rejecting their own Messiah.
He warned of eternal seperation from not only God, but from their faithful forefathers like Abraham and prophets (often reformers, whom they often disbelieved). Their inequity was false teaching and hypocrisy, which discouraged and kept many sheep from knowing their Shepherd.

The narrow gate Steve is the Lord Himself, “I am the way” , which interestingly is how early christains were called, " people of the way". This became universal, hence catholic later on.

So, Luke says nothing to settle our differences. The key is knowing the Shepherd but above and before knowing any church. Tell me how can one discern which church/ community without knowing Him first, who leads the way?

I hope to know I am off when I start espousing my “community” with more passion than I espouse my Lord.

 

[lanman87]

When Judas position was replaced after he died, who called for his replacement? Peter.

Just as when Peter dies, one is to replace Peter.

You have take a descriptive passage and assumed it is prescriptive. Which is a flaw in reasoning. You can’t assume that just because something happened in a particular way in a particular circumstance that it is a command to “do things this way” from now on.

Unless you are casting lots to decide who replaces Peter and the other apostles then your answer is flawed. You aren’t following the example of how to replace an Apostle. (of course there are no more apostles so it is a moot point).

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

steve-b:

officially, “ecclesial communities” pertains to all Protestant communities, regardless of name

Yes, very graced of her to admit even second vlass church status, but does not specifically address the vanity of it all, in light of the great wedding, when such relugious legalusm will be done away with, Alleluiah.

So scrap the whole notion of heresies and schisms? They don’t mean anything any longer … in your mind?

Why would Jesus use the following example…and say it this way?

Lk 13:

24 “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us.’ He will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ 26 Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’ 28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God.

I am going to take this opportunity to show why it is dangerous to take a position against others and suggest it is an example given by Jesus to consign others to hell.

Take verse 26 and claim it says ( which I am not) “We ate and drank in your presence” …as in “real presence”…as in “ate and drank it in.”

That is actually no worse than suggesting it means heresies and schism.
Both are out of context.

 

[mcq72]

That is actually no worse than suggesting it means heresies and schism.
Both are out of context.

And I think the CC is not dogmatic on such understanding of that text. Catholics do not have to believe in such an application as far as I know.

 

[annad347]

If people don’t accept the authority Jesus put in place, what THEN?

they place their trust in The Lord?

 

[AlNg]

When Judas position was replaced after he died, who called for his replacement? Peter.

Just as when Peter dies, one is to replace Peter.

The Church of Rome was Peter’s last see.

AND

THAT is where his successors come from.

The question that I had was this:

Where did Jesus say that the successors of Peter would be from Peter’s last See and not from his first See at Antioch?

 

[AlNg]

As For

The Church position on salvation,

From Vat II, Lumen Gentium para #14

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Whosoever = any body
Once one knows … THEN they make their decision

That is a change in teaching from what is plainly stated in the Unam Sanctam declaration.
“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[mcq72]

they place their trust in The Lord?

That is kind of how the Lord saw it when the Israelites asked for a visible king, as a rebuff of their invisible Lord God.

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations…this displeased Samuel.
…And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.”

https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/8-7.htm

 

[annad347]

That is kind of how the Lord saw it when the Israelites asked for a visible king, as a rebuff of their invisible Lord God.

I was just commenting on something that was probably out of content of the conversation going on at the time… so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

I was just a reply to, people don’t accept the authority Jesus put in place, what THEN… then we place our trust in Jesus… might not make a difference, but it does.

 

[mcq72]

I was just commenting on something that was out of content of the conversation going on at the time… so I’m not sure what you’re talking about

Ok…usually in these discussions when folks talk about not submitting or accepting authority the pope is the biggest issue, i mean most of us submit to teachers and pastors/ bishops, and to a lot of the early councils etc. and some tradition, but Protestants are unified in not accepting papal office.

Some Catholics think we are like orphans without a pope or a head bishop. Having a visible leader as Christ’s representative on earth is a big deal obviously in CC. Hence my comment about Israel wanting similar thing, instead of a theocracy for Israel, or like what Orrthodox have always had, leaders, even patriarchs, but no singular head bishop.

That was my context. I understand the other part of equation is just the CC as singularily and supremely authoritative that is to be accepted or denied.

There are a few church fathers that say that Jesus is our head bishop and teacher, which i think goes with what you said, putting our trust in Jesus, ultimately, the head of the body.

 

[annad347]

There are a few church fathers that say that Jesus is our head bishop and teacher, which i think goes with what you said, putting our trust in Jesus, ultimately, the head of the body.

Oh then in that case, I agree…when you can’t trust those God put in charge, you can still depend on the trust you have for God, to know the difference.

Man makes mistakes, God does not.

and so I’m not misunderstood, I did not say all of those whom God puts in charge, can not be trusted.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

officially, “ecclesial communities” pertains to all Protestant communities, regardless of name

Yes, very graced of her to admit even second class church status as “community” only for some brethren, but does not specifically address the vanity of it all, in light of the great wedding, when such religious legalism will be done away with, Alleluiah.

Schism and heresies are wrong. THAT is a matter of scriptural doctrine. It’s NOT legalism to avoid
AND to warn everyone when the opportunity presents itself, against THOSE sins, or any sin. Is one refusing to commit either sin, make that person legalistic? hardly. If one warns another about being in either category of sin, does that make the one warning the other legalistic? hardly.

So

Re: grace vs law(s)
For space, if interested, here’s a short 5 min response Is "Legalism" a Rejection of Grace? | Catholic Answers

mcq72:

By the way apostolic is as apostolic does. Succession of truth and spirit is more pertinent than visible tag like, even institutional succession, in the end steve.

Did Jesus not choose Judas to be an apostle? Yep!
And didn’t Jesus also say, it would have been better if he was never born? Yep!

Yet Jesus chose Judas as an apostle. And when Judas hung himself, Peter called for his replacement.

AND

Matthias was chosen to replace Judas.

Did Jesus Promise a sinless Church? Nope!

Jesus promised the Church He builds on Peter and those in perfect unity with Peter, that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against it.

AND

His Church is still here, with Pope Francis the 266th successor to St Peter at the helm.

 

[steve-b]

annad347:

I was just commenting on something that was out of content of the conversation going on at the time… so I’m not sure what you’re talking about

Ok…usually in these discussions when folks talk about not submitting or accepting authority the pope is the biggest issue, i mean most of us submit to teachers and pastors/ bishops, and to a lot of the early councils etc. and some tradition, but Protestants are unified in not accepting papal office.

Some Catholics think we are like orphans without a pope or a head bishop. Having a visible leader as Christ’s representative on earth is a big deal obviously in CC.

It’s a big deal to Jesus as well. He gave one man the keys to the kingdom. Making one man Peter, the leader over the other leaders.

mcq72:

Hence my comment about Israel wanting similar thing, instead of a theocracy for Israel, or like what Orrthodox have always had, leaders, even patriarchs, but no singular head bishop.

That was my context. I understand the other part of equation is just the CC as singularily and supremely authoritative that is to be accepted or denied.

There are a few church fathers that say that Jesus is our head bishop and teacher, which i think goes with what you said, putting our trust in Jesus, ultimately, the head of the body.

And

that is a good place for the references to see context, … properly referenced of course

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If one won’t admit their sins, and take care of them properly, what does that say about their disposition?

Yes or No, is it possible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed without repenting of schism and submitting to the Pope?

The Eucharist is also communion. When you are NOT in communion with the pope, NOR in communion with those in union with the pope, what does that say about one NOT in communion and taking the sacrament of communion in the Catholic Church?

AND

Let’s not dismiss the fact schism is mortal sin.

AND

If you read these links, in this post, we wouldn’t still be talking about this

Re: proper disposition

particularly concerning mortal sin.

 

[Isaac14]

The Eucharist is also communion. When you are NOT in communion with the pope, NOR in communion with those in union with the pope, what does that say about one NOT in communion and taking the sacrament of communion in the Catholic Church?

Since being properly disposed requires being in communion with the Pope, would you go so far as to say that Canon 844 section 3 and the USCCB statement should be repealed so as not give the Orthodox confusion as to whether they can receive or not in a Catholic Church?

Let’s not dismiss the fact schism is mortal sin.

Is it correct to say, from a Catholic perspective, that each and every Orthodox Christian is guilty of the mortal sin of schism?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

mcq72:

steve-b:

officially, “ecclesial communities” pertains to all Protestant communities, regardless of name

Yes, very graced of her to admit even second vlass church status, but does not specifically address the vanity of it all, in light of the great wedding, when such relugious legalusm will be done away with, Alleluiah.

So scrap the whole notion of heresies and schisms? They don’t mean anything any longer … in your mind?

Why would Jesus use the following example…and say it this way?

Lk 13:

24 “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us.’ He will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ 26 Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’ 28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God.

I am going to take this opportunity to show why it is dangerous to take a position against others and suggest it is an example given by Jesus to consign others to hell.

Take verse 26 and claim it says ( which I am not) “We ate and drank in your presence” …as in “real presence”…as in “ate and drank it in.”

That is actually no worse than suggesting it means heresies and schism.
Both are out of context.

Simple answer. They who are being thrown out died in mortal sin.

Examples:
Eating and drinking (consuming the Eucharist) in an unworthy manner IOW they were NOT properly disposed to receive, THEN THEY eat and drink condemnation on themselves. 1 Cor 11:27-29

OR

Re: Heresy / divisive / factious / schism αἱρετικὸν ,
Paul instructs Bp Titus.
see Titus 3:10-11

Point being

Dying in Mortal sin, and there are many ways to sin mortally, then THAT prevents one from entering heaven. IOW, One dies condemned.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Eucharist is also communion. When you are NOT in communion with the pope, NOR in communion with those in union with the pope, what does that say about one NOT in communion and taking the sacrament of communion in the Catholic Church?

Since being properly disposed requires being in communion with the Pope, would you go so far as to say that Canon 844 section 3 and the USCCB statement should be repealed so as not give the Orthodox confusion as to whether they can receive or not in a Catholic Church?

Let’s not dismiss the fact schism is mortal sin.

Is it correct to say, from a Catholic perspective, that each and every Orthodox Christian is guilty of the mortal sin of schism?

Suppose one in schism, decides to NOT remain in schism…
Suppose one is in proximity to death, and their disposition previously, now changes.

Proper Disposition has to do with one’s internal intentions AND current condition of their soul spiritually.
Eating and drinking (consuming the Eucharist) in an unworthy manner IOW they were NOT properly disposed to receive, IOW they were in mortal sin for example, THEN THEY eat and drink condemnation on themselves. 1 Cor 11:27-29

 

[Isaac14]

That doesn’t answer the questions I posed, Steve.

 

[steve-b]

That doesn’t answer the questions I posed, Steve.

Sure it does. Why should you be excused for something I can’t be excused for? Why is something we both know is a mortal sin, and you think you can be excused but I couldn’t … without going to confession first?

AND

Let’s say one lies in the confessional. IOW they say they are sorry (for a sin that is mortal) but they really aren’t sorry. They have no interest in changing., is their mortal sin forgiven? NO

 

[Isaac14]

In my last post, I asked:

Since being properly disposed requires being in communion with the Pope, would you go so far as to say that Canon 844 section 3 and the USCCB statement should be repealed so as not give the Orthodox confusion as to whether they can receive or not in a Catholic Church?

And:

Is it correct to say, from a Catholic perspective, that each and every Orthodox Christian is guilty of the mortal sin of schism?