WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ?

[steve_b]

I’ve grown accustomed to it, particularly in steve b’s case. **Steve cannot apparently read Greek or Latin yet **continues to make such **claims based on **the grammar of English translations. He looks like an idiot each time he raises this ‘point’

#272 why didn’t you answer this?

 

[MichaelP3]

Don’t feel bad. I’ve asked that question many times over 13 years here, and so far no one has given me an answer … yet. But I’m waiting

On the contrary #34

There is no mistake as to the Church that is talked about from the first century, by name, that has preeminent authority over all, and the references I gave were all properly referenced

Consider this,

Bishop John , says the following

Oh but Steve B, You have been given an answer so many times that I have followed this “question”. I am not sure what answer you want until you actually accept it? But then again that would be just you. google it if you are confused. 13 years are really a long time to be struggling with this.

With that being said, I have asked before to this question, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE? I didn’t get any answer from you? So even if you get the response you want so you believe “it has been answered?” What is you point in asking it?

Like I asked before? The Egyptians of today claim to be Egyptians. Does that make them the Egyptians in the time of Josef? Simple Question, that I will also wait many years to “consider” evident if I am not hearing what I want to.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

Romans 8 : 14 -16

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; for we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, ABBA, FATHER. The Spirit itself be are the witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”

Pope, papa, Father, Daddy!

No argument there … But I’m guessing you call your clergyman “Pastor” … that doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t your shepherd, does it?

 

[Peter_J]

In Greece, it is often a title we give our priests. When living in Thessaloniki, our spiritual father/confessor was one Fr George, who all his spiritual children referred to as Papa Yiorgi.

Must be ignorant of “Call no man your father.”

 

[Peter_J]

What exactly is a ‘gay church’?

And what kind of apparel do they don there?

 

[Wannano]

No argument there … But I’m guessing you call your clergyman “Pastor” … that doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t your shepherd, does it?

Of course not, the Lord is my Shepherd, He LEADETH me…gives me direction, purpose and fulfillment.

 

[steve_b]

Oh but Steve B, You have been given an answer so many times that I have followed this “question”. I am not sure what answer you want until you actually accept it?

None of the answers gave proof with references “properly referenced”. THAT was a requirement.

Therefore there were no answers.
M:

But then again that would be just you. google it if you are confused. 13 years are really a long time to be struggling with this.

I’m not the one struggling. Those who can’t give the answer are the ones struggling
M:

With that being said, I have asked before to this question, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE?

Prove?

It’s like me asking you for example, you as a Protestant, who (by name) started your particular church? And what is the date it was started?
M:

I didn’t get any answer from you?

Now you have it.
M:

The Egyptians of today claim to be Egyptians. Does that make them the Egyptians in the time of Josef? Simple Question, that I will also wait many years to “consider” evident if I am not hearing what I want to.

Blessings

I’ve been clear on the succession I reference.

Who was the book of Romans written to? The Church of Rome, right? It’s the same Church St Peter wrote from, St Paul wrote to, St Clement wrote from, St Ignatius of Antioch wrote to, St Irenaeus wrote about, etc etc etc. The same Church today Pope Francis is over, 266th successor to St Peter in Rome.

 

[Wannano]

Ask any Mormon they will provide personal testimonies/examples.

You are my bother in Christ as far as I am concerned. There are significant differences though.
*********** Sorry to be a bother :ehh:

The Eucharist as a example. Either it is the greatest idolatry in the history of mankind or it is the greatest miracle ever and a core Christian practice that all of Christendom should be a part of.
*************Can a Eucharist be a Eucharist without Transubstantiation?

You mentioned the apostles creed. Do you believe in the Catholic communion of Saints that it mentions?
********** Is there a hidden meaning?

And i have accidentally stepped foot in these gay 'churches". Very loving environment in there - no kidding. Are openly gay folks actually Christians in good standing with God? Will I know them by their love for me that they are Christians?
**********Can openly gay folks be celibate? If so, will they know you are a Christian by your love for them? (I am speaking to myself on this one too, believe me!)

Edit: sorry for messing up the format.

 

[Wannano]

So Catholic individuals never judge others? Yeah right…

Catholics should accept all who believe in the Gospel and sincerely seek to be Baptized in the Trinity, as Christians. Their perseverance in following Jesus from that point should seek to love God and neighbor, obeying His commands.

Their personal conviction of the fulness of Communion, has become muddied by centuries of divisions and sins of Catholics and heretics alike.

Heretics? Oh, you mean non-Catholic Christians!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

*********** Sorry to be a bother

brother, but you knew that.

*************Can a Eucharist be a Eucharist without Transubstantiation?

Invalid without Catholic clergy according to early Church.

You mentioned the apostles creed. Do you believe in the Catholic communion of Saints that it mentions?
********** Is there a hidden meaning?

The men who wrote it weren’t protestants. Do you think they had a protestant understanding of it? If so, why?

**********Can openly gay folks be celibate? If so, will they know you are a Christian by your love for them? (I am speaking to myself on this one too, believe me!)

Not picking on gay folks in the least bit. Just saying they are wonderful people from my experience, will give you the shirt off their back. Same thing for Mormons. Even moderate Muslims believe in some sort of Jesus and many are very nice people…

Their doctrine differs quite differently from both Catholics and Protestants. All seem to bear fruit and claim they love Jesus. So are they all our brothers and sisters in Christ?

That’s kind of the point. Where’s the line that one crosses where doctrine no longer matters, and who decides that?

 

[steve_b]

I didn’t give my opinion. I quoted sources, going back to the first century. It’s what those sources said.

 

[steve_b]

you mean like this? #430

Prodromos made a point and I responded with this post #272 . He hasn’t responded to what i wrote…yet.

BTW
Act 9:31 in English translation (emphasis mine)
31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

Note in English Holy Spirit is capitalized. NOT so in the Greek study bible from that link. #272

There’s an example where translators did a great service for proper understanding

 

[steve_b]

Prodromos was challenging me on noun vs adjective using Greek terms. Challenging me to show that catholic church had to be capitalized in order to be a noun. So I challenged him back. Is the holy spirit a noun or an adjective? I showed him that the Greek study bible has holy spirit as lower case. No answer from him yet
J:

Prodromos was slightly more harsh than I would have been. However it is tiresome to have keep explaining why the argument you are trying to make will not work and the question you are trying to ask is essentially a non-existent question and thus meaningless ultimately.

Remember you said to me

“However as a number of posters have pointed out to you now a vast number of times you are trying to retrospectively glue the definition of a term in modern English on to languages from several millennia ago. It is not productive and not a wise way to understand how terms evolved”

Those critics, those posters you refer to, are all NON Catholics. IOW, they have their own issues they have to defend as a result of what I’m posting. Bottom line , they haven’t refuted what I’ve said. All they have done is disagree with what I’ve said. And because I use quotes, from well established sources, it’s really not my thoughts they disagree with, it’s my sources they can’t refute.

 

[steve_b]

Of course there was something to refute. He was wrong to deny that catholic church is a name therefore a noun and not an adjective even, if the name was not capitalized. Just like the holy spirit being lower case doesn’t demote the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity to adjective status.

Asking my question in reverse,

There was no Orthodox Church in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th,… centuries. If it is there then where is it by date, in writing, properly referenced…?

Keep in mind, the creed in the 4th century says it is an article of faith to believe in

One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

That creed is still here today and forever.

 

[steve_b]

Many Protestants say the creed as well.

How does that work for them when they aren’t Catholic?

 

[LatinRight]

How does telling the truth that the RCC is the One True Church mean that everyone else cannot be saved? I am not sure what you are saying here. That we should not accept the One Truth that was given to us by Christ that there is not one truth? And we should accept many truth’s. How can there be more then one truth?

The sole Church of Christ which in in the creed we profess one holy catholic and apostolic subsists in the CC which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. NEVERTHELESS many elements of sanctifcation and truth are found outside its Visible confines. 870 CCC.

God bless Rinnie,

Thanks for your posts.

Your question:
How does telling the truth that the RCC is the One True Church mean that everyone else cannot be saved?

My answer:
In the past, before Vatican II, when CCC 846, 818, 819, 1271, etc. could not be part of the CCC, the teachings of the RCC were “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

MEANING OF THE ABOVE TEACHINGS

1. For salvation a person must be in full communion with the RCC.
2. The RCC is “The One Tue Church” as the result the RCC is also “The Universal Church,” birthday of the Universal Church is Pentecost, founded by Christ.

a. All other Churches Protestant, etc. are heretical Churches.

b. Every member of those heretical Churches condemned to hell and end up in hell.

This is above:** “Outside of the Church there is no salvation” **and the RCC is The One Tue Church means.

If I remember correctly the timing, at the Vatican II the above teaching has changed as described in CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.

CCC 1271 … Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.” End quote.

At the above point, fulfilled again the common saying from St. Augustine **" Rome has spoken; the case is closed." **(Sermon 131:10)

There is no room for further debate on CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc.!!!

CCC 818, 819, 1271, etc. caused a seismic proportional change in the RCC, opened the way for the unification of the RCC with every Christian Churches. – Of course more works need to be done before unification.

**THE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE CHANGE **

1. The members of the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches become True Christians.
2. As the True Christians are the True Churches, as the results the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches become True Churches.
3. As the Protestant, Anglican, etc. Churches **become True Churches, the RCC could not be any longer The One True Church but a True Church **a part of the Universal Church with the parts of the other True Churches.

MAIN POINTS OF THE ERA BEFORE VATICAN II, WHEN CCC 818, 819, 1271, 847, 848, 1260 etc. WAS NOT part of the CCC.

A Catholic officially WAS free to say; The RCC is The One True Church founded by Christ and she is the Universal Church.

Because officially the RCC and the Universal Church was the same and was no salvation outside of the RCC.

So, CCC 818, 819, 1271, 847, 848, 1260 etc. could not be part of the CCC.

Continue

 

[LatinRight]

Continuation

MAIN POINTS OF OUR ERA AFTER VATICAN II, AFTER CCC 818, 819, 1271, 847, 848, 1260 etc. become part of the CCC.

A Catholic officially NOT free to say The RCC is The One True Church founded by Christ and she is the Universal Church.

Because AFTER CCC 818, 819, 1271, 847, 848, 1260 etc. all Christian Churches are True Churches with our brothers and sisters/elect described in CCC 847, 848, 1260 etc. and all are members of the Universal Church, founded by Christ.
Pentecost is the birthday of the Universal Church.

A Catholic who knows the teachings of the RCC includes CCC 818, 819, 1271, 847, 848, 1260 etc.

NEWER say; the RCC is The One True Church but say in harmony with the teachings of the RCC, the RCC is a True Church.

This is nothing to do with political correctness,** this is everything to do with theological correctness and with the love and respects of our Christian brothers and sisters.**

We shouldn’t commit the sin of religious pride and lack of love and respect by saying; look at us, our Church is The only One True Church!!!

ANOTHER ISSUE

CCC 866 The Church is one: she acknowledges one Lord, confesses one faith, is born of one Baptism, forms only one Body, is given life by the one Spirit, for the sake of one hope (cf. Eph 4:3-5), at whose fulfillment all divisions will be overcome.

CCC 870 “The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,… subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”(LG 8).

If we study 866 – 870; 818, 819, 1271, 847, 848, 1260 etc. in context, we see “The Church is one: … one Lord, confesses one faith, is born of one Baptism, forms only one Body,” speaking about the Catholic (Universal) Church, which the RCC is a part of it with all other Christian Churches and all are One Body in the universal Church / Body of Christ / Bride of Christ.

A QUOTE FROM YOUR POST RINNIE
“And by the way I do not understand number one that you stated. God has never taught plural truths so I could never see any contradiction in the truth. Maybe its my misunderstanding and you could help me understand what you are saying there. Thanks”

Sorry but I don’t remember I have written the above text and I couldn’t find it in my posts.
To tell the truth I don’t understand it either.

God bless,

LatinRight

 

[rcwitness]

Heretics? Oh, you mean non-Catholic Christians!

And Catholics. A heretic is any Christian having/practicing personal beliefs opposed to the norm.

 

[Wannano]

And Catholics. A heretic is any Christian having/practicing personal beliefs opposed to the norm.

Hi rc, I understand the dictionary definition and it seems simple. Just anybody who has a different belief than the norm. But who gets to be the norm? Thus Jesus was a heretic in his Jewish world. The Apostle Peter, the first Pope in the Catholic lens would have been a heretic until Paul confronted him publicly over his stance on the Jew/Gentile thing.

The word has loaded connotations for someone like me who was raised with the knowledge that my ancestors were burned alive or stretched apart on a rack for being heretics.

Are Catholics who do not accept the Vatican II changes considered heretics?

 

[rcwitness]

-]/-]-]/-]

Hi rc, I understand the dictionary definition and it seems simple. Just anybody who has a different belief than the norm. But who gets to be the norm?

St Irenaeus, and other Fathers, Taught that the See of Rome gets to be the formal norm.

Thus Jesus was a heretic in his Jewish world. The Apostle Peter, the first Pope in the Catholic lens would have been a heretic until Paul confronted him publicly over his stance on the Jew/Gentile thing.

No, the Jews were divided. Those who accepted the Messiah, and His 12, remained in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, etc. Those who did not, became heretics.

The word has loaded connotations for someone like me who was raised with the knowledge that my ancestors were burned alive or stretched apart on a rack for being heretics.

Yes, there have been death persecutions for heresy. Many Reformed Christians have done so, along with Catholics, through history. An interesting read is this, from Wiki.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

The early Father’s and popes did not believe in this death penalty.

Are Catholics who do not accept the Vatican II changes considered heretics?

I don’t believe so. Vatican II was a “pastoral” council, and not so much a Council to lay down Dogmas and Doctrine. I shouldn’t say too much about that, though, because I’m not very certain. And as PeterJ loves to remind, I’m merely an anonymous Internet -]somebody/-] nobody anyhow.