Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are not really getting it are you? All Christians are the body of Christ. There are no Christians that are more Christian than others. Jesus didn’t come just for the sake of your tradition.Yes you are still two quite separate churches.
Unity, from a Catholic perspective, signifies the divinely instituted harmony that binds individuals and communities in truth, charity, and sacramental communion, reflecting the oneness of God Himself. In the context of Church unity, it denotes the visible and spiritual cohesion of the faithful under one doctrine, one sacramental life, and one apostolic governance, centred on the successor of Saint Peter. This unity is not merely a sociological or emotional bond but a theological reality rooted in Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21), safeguarded by the Holy Spirit and expressed through the four marks of the Church: one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. It excludes doctrinal contradiction and schism, affirming that full ecclesial communion subsists only in the Catholic Church, which alone preserves the fullness of truth and the means of grace established by Christ.You are not really getting it are you? All Christians are the body of Christ. There are no Christians that are more Christian than others. Jesus didn’t come just for the sake of your tradition.
Were that really cohesive, and truthful you may have a point. But even the orthodox, you know, the other orthodox sects, disagree, legitimately so. As do virtually all the protest sects and every other Christian sect.the Catholic Church, which alone preserves the fullness of truth and the means of grace established by Christ.
That's it, isn't it? "From a Catholic perspective".Unity, from a Catholic perspective,
Well there you go then.It excludes doctrinal contradiction and schism, affirming that full ecclesial communion subsists only in the Catholic Church, which alone preserves the fullness of truth and the means of grace established by Christ.
It is what the Catholic Church says about itself. It is not a debating point. It is a position.Were that really cohesive, and truthful you may have a point.
EVEN? what is your intended meaning with that word?But even the orthodox
I call them ancient churches, now you call them sects - that kind of insulting., you know, the other orthodox sects
Disagree they do, but it is a matter for debate if their stand is legitimate (meaning correct)., disagree, legitimately so.
Protestants groups have a hard time coming to consensus on any matter.As do virtually all the protest sects
If you cannot cope with a frank disclosure of a Church's position then do not expect to find unity any time soon.and every other Christian sect.
Maybe it's time to get off the high horse
and put some clothes on because fewer and fewer are buying the story?
and?That's it, isn't it? "From a Catholic perspective".
Well there you go then.
From a Catholic perspective ..... the Catholic church alone preserves the fullness of truth.
That sir, is a matter for you to figure out.How is there going to be any Christian unity when the bottom line - for Catholics - is "we're right and you're wrong"?
This is the only part of your post that you care about. Nothing here about any kind of unity unless we join your church. Just like the borg except that resistance is not futile. You are still not getting it. You are going to have to explain to Christ why your church is better than anyone elses and why you discarded the rest of His Body for the sake of your traditions.Unity, from a Catholic perspective,
Commonly known as a unilateral position believed only by the declarant (and nobody else)It is what the Catholic Church says about itself. It is not a debating point. It is a position.
Let's not pretend they've concede to all the required Roman catholic positions, though I will give them credit for pretending in public so as not to alienate their respective flocks.EVEN? what is your intended meaning with that word?
I call them ancient churches, now you call them sects - that kind of insulting.
Indeed. Rightfully so.Disagree they do,
Not in RCC doctrine it's not debatable. It really doesn't matter to the offical magisterium if anyone agrees or not. Those who do not agree, no matter what faith flag they fly, if they disagree knowingly, openly, such are officially deemed heretics. And you wonder why the others don't get along with your sect?but it is a matter for debate if their stand is legitimate (meaning correct).
Says the sect that split hundreds of years ago over 3 or 4 words and are still fighting over themProtestants groups have a hard time coming to consensus on any matter.
It's actually much easier and much more openly obvious that everyone has their faults, don't you think?If you cannot cope with a frank disclosure of a Church's position then do not expect to find unity any time soon.
Far be it from me to argue against one whose knowledge of Catholic dogma is so encyclopaedic!Commonly known as a unilateral position believed only by the declarant (and nobody else)
Let's not pretend they've concede to all the required Roman catholic positions, though I will give them credit for pretending in public so as not to alienate their respective flocks.
Indeed. Rightfully so.
Not in RCC doctrine it's not debatable. It really doesn't matter to the offical magisterium if anyone agrees or not. Those who do not agree, no matter what faith flag they fly, if they disagree knowingly, openly, such are officially deemed heretics. And you wonder why the others don't get along with your sect?
Says the sect that split hundreds of years ago over 3 or 4 words and are still fighting over them
It's actually much easier and much more openly obvious that everyone has their faults, don't you think?
I mean why associate with any church if it can't at least be that honest?
That sounds very magnanimous, but in reality it's just papering over disunity of faith with nominal unity.You and your clan are welcomed at my church any time.
It’s not magnanimous at all but what scripture teach.That sounds very magnanimous, but in reality it's just papering over disunity of faith with nominal unity.
The point of my post is that we treat each other as equal Christians part of the Body of Christ.
That will give us the possibility of defining our words and deciding what we really do stand for and what we can negotiate.
And as you believe that you alone have the truth, anyone else is wrong/suspect/belongs to a church that does not have the truth (therefore, by definition is untrue.)and?
I don't have to use my female brain to figure out anything.That sir, is a matter for you to figure out.
After reading your posts I would refrain from visiting your place of worship.And as you believe that you alone have the truth, anyone else is wrong/suspect/belongs to a church that does not have the truth (therefore, by definition is untrue.)
I don't have to use my female brain to figure out anything.
If you came to our church, we would welcome you.
If it was a communion service, our Minister would say, "this is the Lord's table; anyone who loves our Lord is welcome". If you indicated that you wished to receive communion, you would be offered it and would share in the body and blood of Christ, just like the rest of us.
I suspect that you would not come to our church, even if it was right next door to yours.
I suspect you would not accept there being a female Minister, and either you would refuse to accept communion, or you would want a doctrinal statement about what we believed about the body and blood of Christ.
I have been to a Catholic church and on a Catholic retreat where, they claimed, all denominations were welcome.
In the Catholic church I was welcomed - but quizzed by a member of the congregation about why I did not believe Jesus when he said that the church would be built on Peter. I was not offered communion. Had I tried to copy the others when we went forward, I suspect I would have been humiliated when they refused to give it to me - because I had already been publicly identified as a Methodist Preacher. (I was giving the sermon that day but was only allowed to speak once the service was over.)
On the Catholic retreat one of the nuns spoke to the priest as he came round and said I was a protestant. He passed by without looking at me.
I don't call that unity.
But I already know what the issue is - you're right and we're not, therefore, no fellowship.
I know you would.After reading your posts I would refrain from visiting your place of worship.
communion comes after unity.I know you would.
The point is, you would be welcome and you would be able to receive communion - sharing in the body and blood of Christ.
Regarding the latter, your church can't say the same.
So what chance of unity?
communion comes after unity.
But communion, in your church, would mean becoming a Catholic; believing the things you believe.communion comes after unity.
He is welcome at Mass but not free to take the body and blood of Jesus because he does not believe that they are truly his body and blood. It makes no sense for your husband or yourself to wish for communion when you both completely reject what is offered believing it to be symbolic or perhaps "spiritual" but not real.But communion, in your church, would mean becoming a Catholic; believing the things you believe.
That's already been clearly shown. My husband worked in a Catholic school for 21 years, and had been a Christian for far longer. But he was, and still is, a Protestant - therefore he was not welcome at Mass.
I did not miss it I do not share your view. I would not willingly take the bread and juice offered because for me that is just bread and juice.Maybe you missed the bit where I said that in my church, everyone who loves Jesus is welcome to the communion table. Jesus came so that we could be reconciled to - have unity and fellowship with - God. It is unity with God that is important; it's not for us to judge whether or not we believe Christians to be worthy of communion with him.
I wonder how many disciples at the Last Supper were a) in unity with each other and b) had the faintest idea what was going on - yet Jesus still wanted to share a meal with them. Before the night was over, Judas would betray Jesus, Peter would deny him 3 times and the others would run away. Jesus knew all this - yet he shared the Passover with all of them and they all took bread and wine.
How sad that churches are less charitable than Jesus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?