To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[SteveVH]

What you are saying doesn’t make sense because Pope Paul VI has officially lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox.

Only Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated, not the “Orthodox”. In return the Patriarch excommunicated the Pope (but not the Catholic Church). The Orthodox are in schism, not excommunicated.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Orthodox are in schism, not excommunicated.

Then you have an argument with PRMerger, not me:

Because they are in schism, Tomdstone, which is even more of an excommunication than excommunication.

 

[Tomdstone]

Only Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated, not the “Orthodox”.

If Peter was recognized as having supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, why did the other three patriarchs, who were not excommunicated, follow Patriarch Cerularius and not the Vatican? Here, I mean the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. They went with Cerularius and not with the Roman Pope.

 

[MaryT777]

Cardinal: Your holiness. The Lutherans are coming to dinner.

Pope Francis: Ok. Guess we’ll need to break out the beer Benedict left in the fridge.



Jon

Menu: Lutefisk and Lime Green Jello

 

[yogosans14]

Amen!

Now, let’s think about that Church. Is it invisible or visible?

One perspective (yours perhaps?) is that Jesus established one church, but it is an invisible, abstract, “spiritual” church made up of all true believers, regardless of their denomination, doctrinal beliefs or which worship services they may attend on Sunday.

Thus, each individual believer who has accepted Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior is considered to be a member of the “invisible” church. Neither the building where Christians gather, nor the gathering itself, nor even the denomination to which they belong is considered to be the church. The church is bigger than the local congregation and denomination. This understanding explains why it really does not matter whether a believer moves from congregation to congregation each Sunday or changes denominations every few years when they don’t like pastor or the nursery or the music ministry at the church they’ve been attending.

This is a very common view among non-Catholics, but is it true? Did Jesus establish an “invisible” church that is only “spiritual” in nature? The answer very plainly is, “No!” Jesus said:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

“Tell it to the church”? Which church? Where does one go to find the church if it is merely a “spiritual” church? And how does one find it if it is invisible? Obviously, the church must be visible, and we can be sure of this because Jesus also said:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.” (Matthew 5:14)

Clearly, Jesus is not talking about an invisible, “spiritual” church; he says the church cannot be hidden. It must be visible.

Are you a member of the visible church?

“Church” and “Congregation” mean the same thing. Indeed if the person doesnt listen then they should take it up with the Congregation ie body of local believers

 

[yogosans14]

Yogo-

The Catholic Church teaches the the Eucharist really is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. After all, Jesus said, “The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

He didn’t give us a symbol or a metaphor; He gave us His flesh and blood.

Anglicans and Lutherans believe in the real presence, but most Protestants do not.

I’m not sure what your denominational affiliation is, but odds are yours does not believe in the real presence.

Well I consider it a mystery, I dont truly know nor will I ever.

 

[JonNC]

Menu: Lutefisk and Lime Green Jello

Don’t forget the brats!

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If Peter was recognized as having supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, why did the other three patriarchs, who were not excommunicated, follow Patriarch Cerularius and not the Vatican? Here, I mean the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. They went with Cerularius and not with the Roman Pope.

The disobedience fallacy…

If God is God, how come a 3rd of the angels followed Satan?

Freedom of choice… Freedom of choice

 

[jmcrae]

“Church” and “Congregation” mean the same thing. Indeed if the person doesnt listen then they should take it up with the Congregation ie body of local believers

Yikes, that would lead to complete chaos. If I have a dispute with you, whose congregation do we take it to; yours or mine? I guarantee the ruling would be completely different in mine than in yours.

 

[PRmerger]

Then you have an argument with PRMerger, not me:

Please do not create discord where none exists, Tomdstone. Even if you wish there were some.

You might want to re-read both of the comments we posted. They say the same thing. The Orthodox are in schism, not excommunication.

Because** they are in schism**, Tomdstone, which is even more of an excommunication than excommunication.

The Orthodox are in schism, not excommunicated.

 

[PRmerger]

If Peter was recognized as having supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, why did the other three patriarchs, who were not excommunicated, follow Patriarch Cerularius and not the Vatican? Here, I mean the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. They went with Cerularius and not with the Roman Pope.

That’s why they are in…

wait for it…
wait for it…

SCHISM.

 

[yogosans14]

Yikes, that would lead to complete chaos. If I have a dispute with you, whose congregation do we take it to; yours or mine? I guarantee the ruling would be completely different in mine than in yours.

Idk, depends on the sin.

 

[PRmerger]

Idk, depends on the sin.

So let’s say you have a dispute and you want to divorce and marry your co-worker. Your denomination, like Jesus, says this is adultery. Another congregation says that it is permissible.

So you would just take your dispute to the congregation that says the answer you want.

Is that how it works, yogosan?

 

[yogosans14]

So let’s say you have a dispute and you want to divorce and marry your co-worker. Your denomination, like Jesus, says this is adultery. Another congregation says that it is permissible.

So you would just take your dispute to the congregation that says the answer you want.

Is that how it works, yogosan?

I dont know ANY denomation that would ok that (maybe the Espicopal church but they allow open gay ministers)

Jesus said were 2 or more believers come together he is present. So Jesus isnt just present in the Roman Catholic Church. I respect your beliefs but theres no point of arguing with my fellow Christian brethern over a denomation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Church” and “Congregation” mean the same thing. Indeed if the person doesnt listen then they should take it up with the Congregation ie body of local believers

Ah, of course.

But I have a question…

Suppose a Methodist man marries a Baptist woman and they have a child. The father wants to baptize his child immediately (as he was baptized as an infant), but the mother disagrees because Baptists do not baptize infants. Despite the claims from both sides, scripture does not give us a specific instruction on baptism of infants.

To which “congregation” should they take the matter for resolution? Which “congregation” has authority to decide what is right and what is wrong? They both claim to be led by the Spirit into all truth…

So, does doctrine matter, Yogo? Or would you say that conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable in the one Body of Christ?

 

[PRmerger]

I dont know ANY denomation that would ok that (maybe the Espicopal church but they allow open gay ministers)

Ok.

So you want to divorce and marry your coworker.

Your coworker is an Episcopalian. You are a Baptist.

If you go to your church, the congregation will all unanimously say “No! You cannot do this!”
If you go to the Episcopal congregation, they will unanimously say, “Go for it! If you love your co-worker, that’s all that matters!”

Is this how it works, in your paradigm, yogosan?

 

[yogosans14]

Ok.

So you want to divorce and marry your coworker.

Your coworker is an Episcopalian. You are a Baptist.

If you go to your church, the congregation will all unanimously say “No! You cannot do this!”
If you go to the Episcopal congregation, they will unanimously say, “Go for it! If you love your co-worker, that’s all that matters!”

Is this how it works, in your paradigm, yogosan?

Irrelevant, I want nothing to do with that backwards denomation. I put that denomation in the same cartegory as the Jehovahs Witnesses.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I consider it a mystery, I dont truly know nor will I ever.

It is a mystery, but we can know some things about God, yes?

So, is that you will never know because it’s too deep for us humans?

Or is it because you don’t want to study and learn?

 

[PRmerger]

Irrelevant, I want nothing to do with that backwards denomation. I put that denomation in the same cartegory as the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Ah, I see then.

So in your paradigm you can take it to a church, but only certain denominations?

How do we know which denominations are to be included?

I can see that you have determined that the
JWs
Episcopals

are NOT churches.

Any other ones?

What about the Westboro Baptist Church? Is that one that we can take our disputes to?

And what criterion are you using to discern whether a group of people worshipping together is an included denomination?

 

[jmcrae]

Irrelevant, I want nothing to do with that backwards denomation. I put that denomation in the same cartegory as the Jehovahs Witnesses.

So, everyone who claims the name of Jesus is a Christian - except for some people, whose beliefs about Jesus are obviously wrong …

Where, exactly, do we draw the line, then?