[classyT]

sndbay,
We are not here to judge one another and the 7 churches paraclete mentioned were all under The Church that was founded by Jesus for the were started by the apostles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fredrick,
HMMM? How can the letters to the 7 churches be UNDER the church when they ARE the church.

The problem here I think is the church is NOT a organization, or a denomination. It is every believer in Christ. The period of Grace began when the Lord rose from the dead. The body of Christ or the "church" wasn't started by the apostles. It began with the death burial and resurrection and everyone who puts their faith and trust in HIM is automatically placed in Christ... and THIS is the BODY of Christ or the church.


The letters the Lord wrote to the 7 churches were written to actual assemblies. However they represent different era's during the peirod of Grace in which we now live. I believe you will find our time in the LAST letter.

[speechlesstx]

Joe, of course Saul persecuted the church, that's clear. What's also clear is Paul's recognition of Him as "Lord." It was a personal appearance by Christ and a personal response by Paul. That is the essence of Christianity, and the exact kind of supernatural personal revelation and recognition you only attribute to Peter. You yourself say Paul knew nothing of the church, yet somehow in RCC thinking Paul’s conversion must have been through “His Mystical Body” and not a personal encounter with the Lord Himself. You’re all about making good sense yet that makes no sense whatsoever.

The problem I have with this doctrine of yours is it is based on a lot of assumptions, in practice it elevates the church above its Head and it’s divisive. The RCC’s “far more exacting” notion of unity is legalistic and condescending. Yet, Paul asked in Romans 14, who are you to judge another’s faith? You say we’re “deficient.” Paul said God is able to make us stand, you say “it is only through Christ's Catholic Church.” Well which is it?

[JoeT777]

The problem I have with this doctrine of yours is it is based on a lot of assumptions, in practice it elevates the church above its Head and it's divisive. The RCC's “far more exacting” notion of unity is legalistic and condescending.

How so? How does it elevate the Church above its Head? And how is it more exacting? Also, how is it legalistic? Is there not a Divine and natural Truth? Truth is always 'exacting'. How many Divine Truths do you reckon there are? We know that God and Truth are convertible; St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” Consequently we can say that there is an absolute infallible truth. If we hold that Truth is absolute then there can be only ONE absolute TRUTH.

Thus, we cannot simply hold to a truth that 'feels' good, or that supports our life style, or that tickles our predilections. That is unless it conforms to God's Truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths as a matter of logic; in any two competing faiths, one must be True and the other must be false; otherwise they both must be wrong. The reason should be obvious; truth resides in God, and what resides in God has definitive meaning. Since the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God then for each us there can be only One Truth, One Word. It's an obscenity to believe Scripture can have 'different meaning for different folks'. The Holy Spirit inspires men to One True faith.

Yet, Paul asked in Romans 14, who are you to judge another's faith? You say we're “deficient.” Paul said God is able to make us stand, you say “it is only through Christ's Catholic Church.” Well which is it?

There has been an implication running through the better part of the non-Catholic posts which seem to imply that I think that everybody non-Roman Catholic are somehow 'deficient', (to use your words). I just want to make sure you understand that I've never implied such a thing, nor intended to imply it. Pointing to Scriptural truth, or a Divine truth, or a Traditional truth isn't in anyway meant to as demeaning.

JoeT

[speechlesstx]

How so? How does it elevate the Church above its Head?

Have you not paid attention to the comments here? Those of us who have disagreed with your "one and only church" notion (repeated ad nauseum in one way or another) only recognize one body of believers, across denominational lines, with Christ at the head of the body, period. The RCC as you present it appears more devoted to maintaining that exclusivity than attaining unity in the faith.

And how is it more exacting?

Those are words from your "unity" article.

Also, how is it legalistic?

If we don't ascribe to your notion of unity, if we don't conform to your standards, if in any way we don't subject ourselves to the authority and teaching of the RCC, we are "deficient." How is that not legalistic?

Thus, we cannot simply hold to what ‘feels’ good, or what supports our life style, or what tickles our predilections. As truth, unless it conforms to the Truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths as a matter of logic; in any two competing faiths, one must be is True and the other must be false or they both must be wrong.

This is where logic gets thrown out the window, as your own argument in Unitatis Redintegratio recognizes "some" of our truth but not all. We have "some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments," but not all.

We "use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion"which "can truly engender a life of grace" and "must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation." BUT, we are still "deficient in some respects" but still hold some "significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."

Do we have some truth or all truth? If we only have some truth then we must be false, right? What good is "some significance" in the grand scheme of divine truth? Does divine truth have levels of significance?

There has been an implication running through the better part of the non-Catholic posts which seem to imply that I think that everybody non-Roman Catholic are somehow 'deficient', (to use your words). I just want to make sure you understand that I’ve never implied such a thing, nor intended to imply it. Pointing to Scriptural truth, or a Divine truth, or a Traditional truth isn’t in anyway meant to as demeaning.

That's just it Joe, "deficient" is not my word. The RCC said it, not me. I don't mean to be contentious, Joe, I love and appreciate my Catholic brethren. If one loves their family in Christ they don't try to exclude them from the family (one and only Church) and they don't consider them "deficient."

[JoeT777]

Have you not paid attention to the comments here? Those of us who have disagreed with your "one and only church" notion (repeated ad nauseum in one way or another) only recognize one body of believers, across denominational lines, with Christ at the head of the body, period.

It's not MY “One and only Church,” the Church is Christ's.

Each Catholic should hold views of his salvation that conform to the Magisterium,the teaching office of the Church. It's always my practice to convey only that which I understand to properly reflect that of the Roman Catholic doctrine, if there has been a failure to do so it's my error.

The RCC as you present it appears more devoted to maintaining that exclusivity than attaining unity in the faith.

Quite the contrary, the Church is open to everyone, but at the same time she 'religiously' guards it's teachings she received from Christ. The Magisterium is charged with teaching as it had learned from the Apostles.

I n regard to One Church, this is not some new doctrine, but one held since it was taught by Christ. The introductory paragraphs of Unitatis Redintegratio are quite clear, there's not much room for misunderstanding:

” The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only.

“Is Christ divided” Paul asks. As I've logically shown, why would Christ commission multiple faiths, doctrine, and beliefs in an absolute Truth? “Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Eph. 4, 3-5). Right reasoning can't be achieved maintaining sovereignty over those revealed cosmic truths as some maintain. This is effectively forming God in the proclivity of our own reasoning, as opposed to God forming His will in a right reasoned conscience. Right reasoning requires man need God, allowing Him to act from from the interior. Such right reasoning is directly opposed to that which emanates from our own predetermined appetite.

However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

Is the Vatican II document wrong, do not some men claim to be inheritors Unitatis Redintegratio continues on to say that all are invited to the ecumenical movement who:

” …invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

Continuing Rome recognizes certain elements of various faiths;

…Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.


The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.


It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

This is where logic gets thrown out the window, as your own argument in Unitatis Redintegratio recognizes "some" of our truth but not all. We have "some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments," but not all.

Catholics recognize that God's Truths are absolute and universal. Consequently, how and where God reveals truth, it remains a universally truth. It's true, all these essential gifts are found the world over, but these Truths will always lead us to Christ and His Church.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. (my emphases)

We "use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion "which "can truly engender a life of grace" and "must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation." BUT, we are still "deficient in some respects" but still hold some "significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."

And?

Do we have some truth or all truth? If we only have some truth then we must be false, right? What good is "some significance" in the grand scheme of divine truth? Does divine truth have levels of significance?

We have revealed Truth. It's a non-sequitur in the equation of truth to significance. It's through the grace of God that we are offered salvation; the fullness of that grace can only be realized in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ.

That's just it Joe, "deficient" is not my word. The RCC said it, not me. I don't mean to be contentious, Joe, I love and appreciate my Catholic brethren. If one loves their family in Christ they don't try to exclude them from the family (one and only Church) and they don't consider them "deficient."

The separated Churches are 'deficient' yet Christ still holds open a means of salvation through his grace. They are deficient in the sense that it's in the Church of Jesus Christ that we see a fullness of the efficacy of that grace. There isn't a single document I've cited thus far that 'excludes' anybody, but they all ask for love and obedience to God.

Separation from the communion with the Mystical Body of Christ is viewed as serious for a Catholic. Communion is rooted in our love of God. In Christ's commandment to Love God, “with thy whole heart.” But it doesn't end there; loving God is to voluntary resolve to reason rightly in God's will, Christ adds, “and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind.” I understand this to mean that to love God requires, the contemplative heart, the repentant soul, and the discipline of reason resulting in 'moral perfection'. We see that reason is "to love God above all things is to insure the sanctity of our whole life" (Le Camus, "Vie de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ", III, 81).


Allow me to ask a few questions of you. How is one religion as good as another; can you reason this out for me?

JoeT

[arcura]

Classy, Sorry but the Catholic church is the only "One, Holy, Apostolic, Universal Church".
There may be other churches somewhat similar but that is the accurate description of the Roman Catholic Church and has been so for many centuries.
There is no other exactly like it.
I think each church has it's own description or at least most do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[speechlesstx]

[QUOTE=JoeT777;1956060]

It’s not MY “One and only Church,” the Church is Christ’s.

That's what we've been saying.

Quite the contrary, the Church is open to everyone, but at the same time she ‘religiously’ guards it’s teachings she received from Christ. The Magisterium is charged with teaching as it had learned from the Apostles.

It may be open to everyone but it dismisses all other denominations as "deficient."

I n regard to One Church, this is not some new doctrine, but one held since it was taught by Christ. The introductory paragraphs of Unitatis Redintegratio are quite clear, there’s not much room for misunderstanding:

No it is not a new doctrine and we don't disagree with the idea that there is only one church, we just disagree that this one church is encompassed only in the Roman Catholic Church.

“Is Christ divided” Paul asks. As I’ve logically shown, why would Christ commission multiple faiths, doctrine, and beliefs in an absolute Truth?

Who is "dividing" Christ? We're not, we recognize but one Christ, the Head of the church in all church bodies that adhere to the necessary elements of the faith. The RCC thinks we don't have all those necessary elements which is why we're considered "deficient." We on the other hand think the RCC has added elements nowhere supported in scripture.

“Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Eph. 4, 3-5).

Agreed, and which of these elements are we missing?

Catholics recognize that God’s Truths are absolute and universal. Consequently, how and where God reveals truth, it remains a universally truth. It’s true, all these essential gifts are found the world over, but these Truths will always lead us to Christ and His Church.

So though we have the "essential" truths it is only through and because of the RCC? If we hold to these "essential" truths we'll all eventually be led to the RCC?

We have revealed Truth. It’s a non-sequitur in the equation of truth to significance. It’s through the grace of God that we are offered salvation; the fullness of that grace can only be realized in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ.

We don't have revealed truth?

The separated Churches are ‘deficient’ yet Christ still holds open a means of salvation through his grace. They are deficient in the sense that it’s in the Church of Jesus Christ that we see a fullness of the efficacy of that grace. There isn’t a single document I’ve cited thus far that ‘excludes’ anybody, but they all ask for love and obedience to God.

Back to my original point in this thread, you fail to see how your claim of the RCC as the "one and only church" is divisive. Unitatis Redintegratio states Catholics "must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren." My outlook is I take exception to anyone making the claim of being the "one and only church." My church has all of the "essential" elements of the faith. God does not withhold anything from us for not being subject to Rome.

Allow me to ask a few questions of you. How is one religion as good as another; can you reason this out for me?

Since I hold no such view I have no need to reason it out. I'm a Christian, you're a Christian, what else needs to be said?

[JoeT777]

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;1956694]

Since I hold no such view I have no need to reason it out. I'm a Christian, you're a Christian, what else needs to be said?

How do you define a ‘Christian’?

JoeT

[speechlesstx]

In a nutshell, one who invokes the Triune God and confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior. And you?

[JoeT777]

In a nutshell, one who invokes the Triune God and confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior. And you?

Much the same.

[speechlesstx]

Much the same.

Cool, then we finally agree?

[JoeT777]

Cool, then we finally agree?

Well now... I've never been accused of being 'agreeable' before.

JoeT

[arcura]

Yes, I agree, very much the same.
Peace and kindness,
Fred