C
concretecamper
Guest
Many did not participate…few fell into disobedience.
What is the Reason to Believe that the Bible is Less Than 73 Books (all inerrant and inspired)?
- Status
C
concretecamper
Guest
Sure it was…how can those who by their free will seperate from the Universal Church then complain that they are not involved…or claim equal standing?
Who separated from the Universal Church? The see of Rome is only one see in the Universal Church. The very definition of an ecumenical council means all are involved. That’s why Carthage and Rome and Hippo are not ecumenical councils, but local synods.
Jon
C
concretecamper
Guest
It seems to me that those who say Trent was not an ecumenical council of the Universal Church are those who are seperated from Her.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Well on your side of the schism it would certainly seem that way. For those of us on the other…
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Im not the person to debate papal supremecy with but I do try to know my history with regaurds to the canon of scripture. The fact simply is that there has never been a universal declaration of what the canon should be observed by all churches, your canon is particular to Rome’s canon of scripture. When I look to the seven eccumenical councils, when I see the history of Christendom I see no universality on this point of the canon of scripture. Certaintly I do not believe I am bound to any of the local councils (carthage) or latin eccumenical councils after the schism.
it should tell you something that the east didn’t use the canon of Pope Damasus but has continued to develop and never had a set statement binding on all the churches (under its jurisidction) of what composes the scripture.
A
Abu
Guest
Vatican II was the 21st Ecumenical Council, and Trent was the 19th Ecumenical Council.
False.
Ecumenical = universal: “a council because the bishops meet for united deliberation and decision, and ecumenical because their meeting represents the whole Christian world in union with the See of Peter.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday 1975, p 221].
The first Ecumenical Council was Nicaea I in 325.
The attempts to obscure history and reality are never-ending.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
I assume you mean roman church, which I do not reguard as the universal church, then yes I am seperated from the roman church.
C
concretecamper
Guest
A “yes” would have sufficed.
A
Abu
Guest
As Christ historically established His Church on St Peter as His first Vicar, and from the very first there have been heretics and schismatics. Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).
Thus the reality that heretics and miscreants are first punished by the first Vicar of Christ, St Peter, is yet another fact of Peter’s primacy so clearly and irrefutably established by Christ Himself.
There will never ever be every claimed follower of Christ united within His Church as free-will allows everyone to choose truth or error.
Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.
Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).
With Christ’s teaching on His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, He made sure that this was not misunderstood by:
- Reemphasizing His teaching and refusing to change it even when many left Him
- By questioning, ensuring that His Apostles, with Peter the Supreme Vicar of His Church, understood and assented to His teaching – so clear as to His meaning – that the doubters left Him.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Wrong! It is not logical to separate from the Church, then say a council they held was not ecumenical because you were not involved? What sense does that make?
C
concretecamper
Guest
The Orthodox say you separated from them. So, while I understand you Catholic POV, I also understand theirs. The Universal Church is divided.
Jon
So let me get this straight…the Orthodox wants to debate that they are part of my Church yet in their eyes we seperated from them???
The Church IS one, it is not divided. There are people seperated from her but that does not suggest disunity within the universal church. All it means some people got their shorts in a knot over something and left the universal church.
Christ prayed to His Father for exactly that…for them to be One. Therefore is can never be thought of as otherwise.
A
Abu
Guest
St. Jerome:
“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. (ibid., 15:2).”
“785. The first thing to be noted is that not all Eastern Rite Churches are separated from Rome. There are about twenty groups of Eastern Orthodox Churches existing as national Churches in a state of separation from Rome and independently of one another as regards authority or jurisdiction. So we have the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Syrian, or Russian, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian, etc. As contrasted with these twenty separated groups, there are nine or ten different Eastern Rite Churches which are in union with Rome, acknowledging Papal Supremacy. These are popularly spoken of as the “Uniate Eastern Churches” and members of them are recognised by the Pope as Catholics every bit as much as Western or Latin Rite members of the Catholic Church.”
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787
“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. (ibid., 15:2).”
“785. The first thing to be noted is that not all Eastern Rite Churches are separated from Rome. There are about twenty groups of Eastern Orthodox Churches existing as national Churches in a state of separation from Rome and independently of one another as regards authority or jurisdiction. So we have the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Syrian, or Russian, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian, etc. As contrasted with these twenty separated groups, there are nine or ten different Eastern Rite Churches which are in union with Rome, acknowledging Papal Supremacy. These are popularly spoken of as the “Uniate Eastern Churches” and members of them are recognised by the Pope as Catholics every bit as much as Western or Latin Rite members of the Catholic Church.”
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787
A
Abird
Guest
I am working on my doctoral dissertation and am trying to find parents who have been divorced in the past 3 years, and have a child between the ages of 2-5 who is currently in preschool. The survey is completely anonymous, and takes under 15 minutes. Thank you so much! surveymonkey.com/s/Y6RZ3HD
I don’t think they’d phrase it that way. But if you want to talk about “your Church” as being exclusively and only the Universal Church Militant, I would suspect that they, and of course, I would disagree. I don’t see any way of coming to an agreement on that point, except to say that, from my POV, the Catholic Church is part of the Universal Church Militant, perhaps even the central part of it, considering the historic primacy of honor afforded the Bishop of Rome, but it is not the only part.
So, again, the definition of the Church, and the Universal Church Militant, which is not exclusively and only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
And I pray that His Church on Earth would again be unified.
Jon
C
concretecamper
Guest
ex
Jon,
Let me put it this way. If you accept that is it possible that Christ’s prayer to His Father was not heard, then His church does not have to be One. I trust Christ’s prayer to His Father was heard. Therefore I must admitted the Church is One. So…who is up for the job? Lutherans? Anglicans? Orthodox? The Roman Catholic Church is the only One who makes the claim and carries the burden of preserving the truth. Praise be Jesus!!!
And…don’t prayer for unity…SWIM
- Status