To Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

[MichaelP3]

Sure but any “extras” cease to be problematic if Matt 16:16-19. Is the historical event that the apostolic church claims it to be. The only “extra” truly separating us is the same thing separating the Eastern churches…

Keys.

Point taken. The Protestants would have been in a bad position here if not for the Eastern Churches. Many on this forum either ignored me or didn’t understand what I meant but the very reason they exist begs the question then.

Catholics argument would say ONE visible church. So let us take that as truth. Yet Catholics acknowledge the true presence and orders of Orthodoxy? One can even go ahead with that for now. But then Catholics reject intercommunion (yea I know the Catachism on this but I hope everyone gets my point). This comes back to history. Looking from the Orthodox side that undeniably holds the history or tradition of the first Church, one can not say all of the Catholic teaching/Dogma/whatever has always been believed. Else there would be no problem.

But then some come and say its the people and not the Church. But fact is that visible Church is divided. And I heard some special arguments how they are the same and so. But back to the very essence for Catholics and Orthodox namely the Eucharist, it is denied to each other.

Oh and back to the keys part then. Well if thats the case the Orthodox wouldn’t exist.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Point taken. The Protestants would have been in a bad position here if not for the Eastern Churches. Many on this forum either ignored me or didn’t understand what I meant but the very reason they exist begs the question then.

Catholics argument would say ONE visible church. So let us take that as truth. Yet Catholics acknowledge the true presence and orders of Orthodoxy? One can even go ahead with that for now. But then Catholics reject intercommunion (yea I know the Catachism on this but I hope everyone gets my point). This comes back to history. Looking from the Orthodox side that undeniably holds the history or tradition of the first Church, one can not say all of the Catholic teaching/Dogma/whatever has always been believed. Else there would be no problem.

But then some come and say its the people and not the Church. But fact is that visible Church is divided. And I heard some special arguments how they are the same and so. But back to the very essence for Catholics and Orthodox namely the Eucharist, it is denied to each other.

Oh and back to the keys part then. Well if thats the case the Orthodox wouldn’t exist.

In regards to the Orthodox, how closely have you examined their beliefs and practices?

And did you know that they have since called Rome the “first among equals”?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/orthodox_recognize_pope_first_among_equals_disagreements_remain/

And as a person who is neither Catholic or Orthodox, what does that “First among equals” statement mean in your opinion?

Pax

 

[MichaelP3]

In regards to the Orthodox, how closely have you examined their beliefs and practices?

And did you know that they have since called Rome the “first among equals”?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/orthodox_recognize_pope_first_among_equals_disagreements_remain/

And as a person who is neither Catholic or Orthodox, what does that “First among equals” statement mean in your opinion?

Pax

I can say that I have sadly studied a lot more Catachism than anything else. Thus my statements will be more Catachism than anything else. I still plan to speak personally to some Orthodox “expert” for various reasons.

As to first among equals I am aware of this statement even before I read that article you posted. The article still acknowledge that there is a difference in interpreting its meaning. But beyond that. It should be pretty clear that if Catholics and Orthodox saw this the same way in 1054 it would not have lead to a Schism. Rome said “from the son” case closed. “Rome has spoken case closed” as commonly quoted. This is nowhere the case here amd still question unanswered.

I can go into discussion about parallels to the queen of England and a ceremonial President but I am sure you heard it before. That doesn’t change the point. One apostolic church how Catholics defined it is two. And by acknowledging their orders and true presence Catholics agree that God think they are okay. By denying them communion means you are separated (by catholic teaching). This seems not to have an answer.

And don’t get me wrong. I think you all are as much Christian as the word would mean. Just thinking about those dots not connecting concerning those “extras”

Regards

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I can say that I have sadly studied a lot more Catachism than anything else. Thus my statements will be more Catachism than anything else. I still plan to speak personally to some Orthodox “expert” for various reasons.

As to first among equals I am aware of this statement even before I read that article you posted. The article still acknowledge that there is a difference in interpreting its meaning. But beyond that. It should be pretty clear that if Catholics and Orthodox saw this the same way in 1054 it would not have lead to a Schism. Rome said “from the son” case closed. “Rome has spoken case closed” as commonly quoted. This is nowhere the case here amd still question unanswered.

I can go into discussion about parallels to the queen of England and a ceremonial President but I am sure you heard it before. That doesn’t change the point. One apostolic church how Catholics defined it is two. And by acknowledging their orders and true presence Catholics agree that God think they are okay. By denying them communion means you are separated (by catholic teaching). This seems not to have an answer.

And don’t get me wrong. I think you all are as much Christian as the word would mean. Just thinking about those dots not connecting concerning those “extras”

Regards

Depends on what you mean by “ok”… I mean God has always had that special someone in authority like Moses that you had to listen to…a vicarious shepherd, if you will. And if you were in rebellion to Moses you pretty much committed spiritual suicide. If you even complained to him, God might send a snake or two to take care of that problem - Numbers 21:6

And I would argue that only the Church lead by the chair of Peter has the promise from the Lord to remain with it always, keeping it free from doctrinal error. This is why you see so much division and doctrinal confusion in the other Churches in existence to include the Orthodox with their varying opinions and canons. And I guess the point I’m attempting to make is that sheep are typically stupid - they need a shepherd or they tend to get away and get devoured by predators…i.e. roaring lions. 1 Peter 5:8 - So I suppose they have more truth than Protestantism, but they are still disadvantaged without a visible shepherd.

I think this “first among equals” talk is a halfway acknowledgement by the Orthodox that Rome is prime. But I would argue that you can not be sorta first anymore than you can be sorta pregnant.

And we have the Church militant on earth, Church suffering in purgatory and Church triumphant in Heaven - all 1 body, in three different places or state of being… Likewise, many Protestants and Orthodox are part of said body.

I’m surprised you object to the imperfectly joined claim by the Church. I have talked to fundamentlists who are repulsed and offended by that claim because they recognize the sense of unity Rome is projecting with fellow Christians of other branches and they want no part of it… I guess it’s a matter of perception? You see it is a sort of lip service with no depth If I’m understanding your position correctly??

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Greetings,

So the protestant interpretation is the correct one?

And which one protestant version would that be?

I guess I’m not sure what you mean by Protestant version. Do you have some examples?

I’m thinking more of church history as it’s understood by Catholic church apologists in particular, versus other church historians, like, say, Philip Jenkins—just to give one example of someone who is Catholic (I believe) but who also writes about church history in a way that’s much more objective. The more I read and study, the less tenable I find Catholic claims of early church unity/uniformity and Latinate Church superiority.

 

[MichaelP3]

Depends on what you mean by “ok”… I mean God has always had that special someone in authority like Moses that you had to listen to…a vicarious shepherd, if you will. And if you were in rebellion to Moses you pretty much committed spiritual suicide. If you even complained to him, God might send a snake or two to take care of that problem - Numbers 21:6

And I would argue that only the Church lead by the chair of Peter has the promise from the Lord to remain with it always, keeping it free from doctrinal error. This is why you see so much division and doctrinal confusion in the other Churches in existence to include the Orthodox with their varying opinions and canons. And I guess the point I’m attempting to make is that sheep are typically stupid - they need a shepherd or they tend to get away and get devoured by predators…i.e. roaring lions. 1 Peter 5:8 - So I suppose they have more truth than Protestantism, but they are still disadvantaged without a visible shepherd.

I think this “first among equals” talk is a halfway acknowledgement by the Orthodox that Rome is prime. But I would argue that you can not be sorta first anymore than you can be sorta pregnant.

And we have the Church militant on earth, Church suffering in purgatory and Church triumphant in Heaven - all 1 body, in three different places or state of being… Likewise, many Protestants and Orthodox are part of said body.

I’m surprised you object to the imperfectly joined claim by the Church. I have talked to fundamentlists who are repulsed and offended by that claim because they recognize the sense of unity Rome is projecting with fellow Christians of other branches and they want no part of it… I guess it’s a matter of perception? You see it is a sort of lip service with no depth If I’m understanding your position correctly??

Hi L. I’d first like to say again I appreciate all this between you and some others. I checked the other threads on the more Catholic topics and the posters seem much more “attacking” and “you are wrong case closed” kinda mentality. That was somewhat disheartening. Honestly I do

I hear what you say about Moses and I hope you don’t think I have a problem with the idea of a Pope. I think i made that clear before but maybe just to say it again. That isn’t the least of my problems.

On the “first among equals”. Well I am aware that this statement can be found long back. You must understand my confusion. Catholic teaching on any "teaching " is that it has always been believed and nothing is new. Because it cannot change.

So even if you dont agree with me, just understand why it is difficult to take this as an absolute truth. “If the Bishop of Rome was believed to be what Catholics say he is, and this thought had not changed, why did the Schism happen”. It is a fair question? And if always believed why have a problem? Somewhere someone commented that Rome was praised for its purity during those times. And maybe that can be the case (though not official) but no historical strange heresy came from Rome for how many centuries? Thqt seems plausible without a doubt?

Still the Orthodox are not one with Catholicism. They do not accept the Papacy (as Rome defines it; first among equals or not, they do not see it that way). Yet they have Valid orders and the real presence according to Catholic teaching. This is a conundrum I do not see “reinterpreting” anything can come around. Please understand my question without trying to counter argue anything.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi L. I’d first like to say again I appreciate all this between you and some others. I checked the other threads on the more Catholic topics and the posters seem much more “attacking” and “you are wrong case closed” kinda mentality. That was somewhat disheartening. Honestly I do

I hear what you say about Moses and I hope you don’t think I have a problem with the idea of a Pope. I think i made that clear before but maybe just to say it again. That isn’t the least of my problems.

On the “first among equals”. Well I am aware that this statement can be found long back. You must understand my confusion. Catholic teaching on any "teaching " is that it has always been believed and nothing is new. Because it cannot change.

So even if you dont agree with me, just understand why it is difficult to take this as an absolute truth. “If the Bishop of Rome was believed to be what Catholics say he is, and this thought had not changed, why did the Schism happen”. It is a fair question? And if always believed why have a problem? Somewhere someone commented that Rome was praised for its purity during those times. And maybe that can be the case (though not official) but no historical strange heresy came from Rome for how many centuries? Thqt seems plausible without a doubt?

Still the Orthodox are not one with Catholicism. They do not accept the Papacy (as Rome defines it; first among equals or not, they do not see it that way). Yet they have Valid orders and the real presence according to Catholic teaching. This is a conundrum I do not see “reinterpreting” anything can come around. Please understand my question without trying to counter argue anything.

Hi Michael.

I understand your position, i think anyway. Not sure about the part regarding strange hersesy? If you elaborate on that?

Do you think it’s possible that jealousy crept in with the eastern Churches? Or maybe Rome came across as too arrogant which lead to the separation? I think it’s likely both factors combined. The Church hasn’t always acted with humility in these situations.

I don’t mean to imply that you reject the whole idea of authority…only that said “extras” you mentioned become non issues if Matthew 16:16-19 means what the church claims it means.

 

[Peter_J]

The more history I read, the more implausible (to me at least) is the Catholic interpretation of history, particularly the history of the Church.

Newman apparently found the opposite.

But I respect your opinion.

 

[steve_b]

The more history I read, the more implausible (to me at least) is the Catholic interpretation of history, particularly the history of the Church.

Here is a condensed history of the 1st 400 years. You’re welcome to try and disprove it

• #34 , all internal links are operational

 

[Peter_J]

Point taken. The Protestants would have been in a bad position here if not for the Eastern Churches. Many on this forum either ignored me or didn’t understand what I meant but the very reason they exist begs the question then.

I’m not sure what post you mean, but I’m sorry you were ignored. I think many posters ignore anything that isn’t heavy on intolerance. Hmmm.

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi Michael.

I understand your position, i think anyway. Not sure about the part regarding strange hersesy? If you elaborate on that?

Do you think it’s possible that jealousy crept in with the eastern Churches? Or maybe Rome came across as too arrogant which lead to the separation? I think it’s likely both factors combined. The Church hasn’t always acted with humility in these situations.

I don’t mean to imply that you reject the whole idea of authority…only that said “extras” you mentioned become non issues if Matthew 16:16-19 means what the church claims it means.

Maybe the term "strange heresy " was wrong. What I meant was that no official heresy came from the west during those times. So asking a outsider didn’t seem that strange. Point being, no controversial issue was brought up in the west. No Roman Bishop even as a human was the centre of any controversy. According to history Rome was pretty unscathed.

I would agree that Rome acted very arrogantly in the its years leading to the Schism. After Peppins gift. Some Emperor acknowledging Rome and so on. And Rome Crowning him. Being all independent while the East wasn’t just like the times of Constantine. This is the history I mean when I say I go into history and I can go a lot deeper. Jealous part you will have to help me on. It could be. But still 5 sees seperated to one and four. Elementary Mathematics would say the four remained the true one. And that the four would hold the true “Historical ideas” namely “they did not see first among equals the same way”. So obviously that term won’t do much for me from a historical viewpoint. Rome overstepped to what was commonly believed. And was to arrogant to say sorry. Because they can’t. You must understand that from my viewpoint .

 

[steve_b]

I have heard people ask this (including you I think) but I do feel that is taking it away from the point.

Protestants (as far as I know) do not claim anything that needs some sense of “debatable” history to prove. 90% of Catholic teaching can or cannot be true and would make no difference for a Protestant. For a Catholic every single miniscule thing HAS to be in place for the logic to make sense.

Doctrines and dogmas have to be in place, that’s true. And it’s true one needs to trace their lineage back to Jesus and what He established, with no interruption or division from Peter…

For a Catholic, that’s a cinch to show

 

[Peter_J]

I’m thinking more of church history as it’s understood by Catholic church apologists in particular, versus other church historians, like, say, Philip Jenkins—just to give one example of someone who is Catholic (I believe) but who also writes about church history in a way that’s much more objective.

If you mean “Internet apologists”, I agree. But I think the same would be true about, say, Protestants or Orthodox. (I’ve spent a good amount of time on an Orthodox web discussion forum.)

Plus, in view of your point, you have to wonder why Protestant posters focus almost all their attention on Catholic “Internet apologists”, don’t you?

 

[Contarini]

Well, since this thread won’t die anyway, here are the two things I want to say about it:

1. Cardinal Newman’s statement needs to be read in context, as a refutation of a particular kind of 18th and early-19th-century Protestant “sola scriptura” polemic (and its modern successors). Protestant apologists like Chillingworth had used history to point out apparent contradictions in Catholic tradition, leading to the conclusion that only Scripture was trustworthy. Newman’s point is that the reason they use history in such a negative way is that their own version of Christianity has very little to do with historic Christianity. I think he was right about that. Newman very clearly distinguishes in the Essay between “Protestantism” and “Anglicanism.” He disposes of Protestantism early on in the section that includes this passage. The rest of the Essay is an explanation why “Anglicanism” (the “via media” neo-patristic approach he had championed) isn’t satisfactory either. Most Protestant church historians of my acquaintance are closer to “Anglicanism” than to "Protestantism as Newman defines the terms, because they do draw richly from the pre-Reformation tradition and are generally willing to acknowledge the need to “reform the reform” by bringing Protestantism into a closer relationship with the older Christian traditions. The heirs of Newman’s “Protestants” continue to have the same problem he described–they use history in an ad hoc fashion to criticize Catholicism, but they tend not to be “deep” in it, except perhaps in the history of their own favored tradition (of course this is a generalization and there are exceptions).
2. Michael B said that the Council of Orange essentially taught a Protestant view of salvation. It didn’t. It taught an Augustinian view. There was no mention of sola fide or imputation. Protestant polemicists (especially the Reformed) need to stop playing bait and switch here. Either Augustinian Catholicism is essentially right, which means that imputed righteousness is at best a non-essential theologoumenon, or it’s basically “Papist” and Protestants need to stop appealing to it as if it were on their side. See this letter of Melanchthon to Brenz for a candid admission, in private, by a major Lutheran that Augustinian soteriology did not express the essentials of the Reformation as Melanchthon understood them. To be fair, the Reformed tradition tends to be a bit more genuinely Augustinian, but Calvin made the choice to embrace the Lutheran view on this. (In my opinion, Calvin’s theology often tries to hold together things that don’t really go together. The example most people point to is his Eucharistic theology, which is actually the point where I think this approach is most justified.)

 

[MichaelP3]

Well, since this thread won’t die anyway, here are the two things I want to say about it:

1. Cardinal Newman’s statement needs to be read in context, as a refutation of a particular kind of 18th and early-19th-century Protestant “sola scriptura” polemic (and its modern successors). Protestant apologists like Chillingworth had used history to point out apparent contradictions in Catholic tradition, leading to the conclusion that only Scripture was trustworthy. Newman’s point is that the reason they use history in such a negative way is that their own version of Christianity has very little to do with historic Christianity. I think he was right about that. Newman very clearly distinguishes in the Essay between “Protestantism” and “Anglicanism.” He disposes of Protestantism early on in the section that includes this passage. The rest of the Essay is an explanation why “Anglicanism” (the “via media” neo-patristic approach he had championed) isn’t satisfactory either. Most Protestant church historians of my acquaintance are closer to “Anglicanism” than to "Protestantism as Newman defines the terms, because they do draw richly from the pre-Reformation tradition and are generally willing to acknowledge the need to “reform the reform” by bringing Protestantism into a closer relationship with the older Christian traditions. The heirs of Newman’s “Protestants” continue to have the same problem he described–they use history in an ad hoc fashion to criticize Catholicism, but they tend not to be “deep” in it, except perhaps in the history of their own favored tradition (of course this is a generalization and there are exceptions).
2. Michael B said that the Council of Orange essentially taught a Protestant view of salvation. It didn’t. It taught an Augustinian view. There was no mention of sola fide or imputation. Protestant polemicists (especially the Reformed) need to stop playing bait and switch here. Either Augustinian Catholicism is essentially right, which means that imputed righteousness is at best a non-essential theologoumenon, or it’s basically “Papist” and Protestants need to stop appealing to it as if it were on their side. See this letter of Melanchthon to Brenz for a candid admission, in private, by a major Lutheran that Augustinian soteriology did not express the essentials of the Reformation as Melanchthon understood them. To be fair, the Reformed tradition tends to be a bit more genuinely Augustinian, but Calvin made the choice to embrace the Lutheran view on this. (In my opinion, Calvin’s theology often tries to hold together things that don’t really go together. The example most people point to is his Eucharistic theology, which is actually the point where I think this approach is most justified.)

You are right on one thing… I also wish it would die.

 

[LutheranScholar]

If you mean “Internet apologists”, I agree. But I think the same would be true about, say, Protestants or Orthodox. (I’ve spent a good amount of time on an Orthodox web discussion forum.)

Plus, in view of your point, you have to wonder why Protestant posters focus almost all their attention on Catholic “Internet apologists”, don’t you?

You pose a good point. There are very many Confessional Protestant forums out there ( as well as this one, where Catholics such as yourself do reach out to Protestants and others for dialogue) where people can hobnob with those of their own Confessions without being too worried about offending the wrong people. This simply really involves simply speaking about churches and issues in society ( some people never heard of the LCMS, so in a random forum, I spoke of the LCMS as being America’s best kept secret and told conservative and Confessional Protestants of all brands to go out and spread their message. Liberal megachurches with names like " Lutheran," or " Reformed," or " Presbyterian" might speak for themselves, but it’s a bad idea to let others sail along thinking that these " churches" speak for the conservatives, too).

Another member here noted how much better we get along when we focus on our similarities rather than our differences.We are called to be in the world and not of the world and that means we have certain standards that we need to uphold. Service to God and neighbor, for example.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Maybe the term "strange heresy " was wrong. What I meant was that no official heresy came from the west during those times. So asking a outsider didn’t seem that strange. Point being, no controversial issue was brought up in the west. No Roman Bishop even as a human was the centre of any controversy. According to history Rome was pretty unscathed.

Ok, I understand, thanks for clarifying.

I would agree that Rome acted very arrogantly in the its years leading to the Schism. After Peppins gift. Some Emperor acknowledging Rome and so on. And Rome Crowning him. Being all independent while the East wasn’t just like the times of Constantine. This is the history I mean when I say I go into history and I can go a lot deeper. Jealous part you will have to help me on. It could be. But still 5 sees seperated to one and four. Elementary Mathematics would say the four remained the true one. And that the four would hold the true “Historical ideas” namely “they did not see first among equals the same way”. So obviously that term won’t do much for me from a historical viewpoint. Rome overstepped to what was commonly believed. And was to arrogant to say sorry. Because they can’t. You must understand that from my viewpoint .

I would say that this approach may seem logical on the surface, but it’s actually the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. There was a time when the majority of the population thought the earth was flat.

As you delve further into Orthodox teaching, I think you will notice a very close resemblance in our beliefs with them. As you likely already know, doctrine= simple x-ray, where dogma more resembles a CT scan or MRI. The RCC’s dogma for example on Mary are beliefs also generally held by the Eastern Churches as well(sinless, ever virgin, Theotokos)…they just wont twist your arm and make you believe all that. I seriously considered the Orthodox faith before becoming Catholic as it’s a beautiful faith and the only other Church that can make a historical claim to have been started by the Lord, Himself.

I know you have studied history and Catholicism in general, but to what extent have you examined Matthew 16:16-19? And do you have a position or opinion on it?

Thanks…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You are right on one thing… I also wish it would die.

 

[steve_b]

On most parts I’ll agree. But for the ones I don’t it would mean Protestants need a Father’s quote to prove anything. Nothing essentials to a Protestant needs such a history or proof. Everything essential to a Protestant is also essential to a Catholic. But not the other way.

So for instance quoting Clement of Rome as a Catholic to make a certain point. But then Clement in his epistle to Corinthians chapter 31 or 32 said something very protestant would be all I need in my mind to question the first quote used against me. Maybe Im going a bit of here. But as a mentioned previously. Its not the need for us to find any favour to us. The favour to us would be the favour to Catholics as well. It’s the “what we deem extras” that is put into question.

(all links are operational)

You’re missing a huge warning about DIVISION from the Church Jesus established. It is condemned in scripture.
Where you ask?

This Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / schism / factions /sedition / sects,

That same word is used in the following 2 selections.

The warning

Romans 16:17-20 (links operational)
[17] Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας ] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. [18] For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. [19] For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. [20] And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The

the consequence

Galatians 5:19-21
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίας ] sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

not my words, but from Jesus

One might say that wasn’t Jesus talking that was Paul talking. Well…

The HS that inspired Paul to teach that, ( John 14:25-26 ) ultimately came from Jesus.( John 16:12-15 ). Correct? And since Jesus will judge all souls, Jesus is telling us in advance through the HS, through Paul, how He will judge division from His Church. Agreed?

Jesus wants and describes perfect unity that He wants John 17:20-23 . Nothing else but that unity will do. Otherwise He wouldn’t have given such a terrible consequence to a soul if they divide from His Church in this life and die in that state of separation. Separation from Him in this life, means eternal separation from Him in the next life. And there is no expiration date on that warning.

So one might ask, how do we know it’s the Catholic Church being spoken of, and how do we know the consequence spoken of by Paul is how bishops who followed the apostles understood it to be?

Bp Ignatius of Antioch,

• ordained by apostles in ~68 a.d., ( that is before Acts & Revelation are written)
• is a direct disciple of St John the apostle,

wrote the following ~107 a.d.
Re: the Catholic Church. Ignatius uses Christian (ch 2) and Catholic Church (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans

Re: schismatics from the Catholic Church. Ignatius says they won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) .

Is there any doubt where he got that teaching from?

For a condensed history of the 1st 400 years #34 , all internal links are operational

 

[JMM1957]

Romans 16:17-20

[17] Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας ] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. [18] For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. [19] For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. [20] And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily.

This is a good one, I seem to forget about this quote and don’t use it as much as some others when speaking of the evils of division in the Church. The Greek word used does show the seriousness of it all.