Peter Is Not The Rock!

[Annolennar]

If the belived that the RCC is Christ's Church then they wouldn't be atheists, jews or muslims. They would be Catholics.

Peace

Unless, of course, they knew and believed it and decided to continue on in seperation anyway. Then they would be hell-bound, considering the discussion at hand.

 

[archierieus]

No it is not an assuption. It's a matter of faith.

It is an assumption as opposed to a fact. It is a belief as opposed to a fact. Others believe that their church is 'Christ's true church.' The list is fairly long.

The Church was founded to at pentecost to evangilze. To spread the Gospel.

The Christian church was founded by Christ, prior to Pentecost, to evangelize. The Roman Catholic church came along some hundreds of years later. Its teachings are significantly different from those of the church Christ founded. It is not the same as the church Christ founded. It is, however, one particular denomination generally thought of for purposes of secular categorization as within the Christian communion.

As stated earlier it's a matter of faith. Hince they do not know, because they do not belive that the CC is Christ's Church.

You, then, as a Catechist, are stating that to be the intent and application of the referenced section? Do you speak for the RCC, wth the authority of the RCC? Does your bishop endorse that application? In writing? Please provide a cite.

That is correct. That excludes protestants. The statement is the relationship the CC has with non-christian religions.

Precisely. Protestants know the gospel, thus they DO fall under the so-called 'affirmation.'

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Historical context.

It was the Pope defending his rights against Philip the fair who wanted to make the CC subject to him in france.

Partially. RC commentators on Unam Sanctam distinguish between the historical/political issues and the spiritual issues of salvation only by submission to the pope, which are affirmed to be timeless and universal.

Now if the CC is Christ's Church and the Pope it's head, then a secular kingdom(France and it's king) is subject to the Christ's kingdom the CC and it's head the Pope.

That, indeed, has been the historical position of the papacy. It is not the teaching of Scripture, however. I assume you are aware of that.

Dave

 

[beamishboy]

Unless, of course, they knew and believed it and decided to continue on in seperation anyway. Then they would be hell-bound, considering the discussion at hand.

You mean they would be hell-bound for believing it in the first place. To believe something that is patently untrue is wrong. To continue to believe it is obstinately wrong.

 

[archierieus]

They do know the Gospel, but they don't know the visible Church. Your, "thus" implies that your conclusion logically follows, when it does not.

Let's look again at the language of 847:

""847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church . . ."

The exclusion is stated to apply to those, first of all, who "do not know Christ and his Church." Again, "do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church." Yes, Protestants DO know Christ, they DO know the Gospel of Christ. And they DO know of, know about, are familiar with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Christians generally DO KNOW the RCC. Many Protestants DO NOT recognize the RCC as 'Christ's church,' based on Scripture. Are you proposing some other meaning for the word 'know'? The catechism was translated into English by the RCC. The words used have common recognized meanings. Are you suggesting some OTHER meaning for 'know'?

Secondly, we have the qualifier, "through no fault of their own.' Meanning what? Please provide the RCC-endorsed explanation of this phrase, with a cite. For example, does study ABOUT the RCC and rejection of the RCC based upon that study, constitute 'fault'?

And the language used elsewhere is clear and unequivocal in stating that the Church mentioned is not limited to the "visible church".

We are talking here about the RCC at the time of Unam Sanctam. That certainly was NOT the case at that time. The official teaching of the RCC at that time was that the RCC is INDEED the one, the only true Church, and that those with other beliefs, who did not submit to the pope, were excluded from salvation. Are you disputing that?

But aside from that, in regard to the 1997 catechism, the RCC STILL claims to be the only true Church. The Church now concedes that God may work today through faith communions outside the RCC, BUT that any knowledge, spiritual beneifts, etc., blessings which may be found in communions outside the RCC in fact "derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.from God." And, that all such is a call to Catholic unity, that is, to bring them into the Catholic fold. (paragraph 814)

By definition, within the Church's self-understanding, all believers are joined in the Body of Christ. Whether or not some may choose an incomplete union while living on this earth is a seperate matter, and has no bearing on whether they may attain salvation through Christ.

That is NOT what the catechism states. Those who KNOW the gospel, those who KNOW the RCC but refuse to join or continue in it, do not have salvation.

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

The reference to 'Church' means here the Roman Catholic church. Do you dispute that? If so, please cite to authorized RCC publications, rather than private interpretation.

To be subject to something doesn't require your consent, it is a matter of authority. You can disagree with the Pope all you want, but the simple fact that you disagree, on its own, doesn't make the Pope wrong.
Taken on a wider scale, Protestant Christians may not acknowledge papal authority. But that doesn't invalidate that authority. If that authority only applied to those who accept it, it would be the equivalent of moral relativism, because any given Christian could choose to disagree with that authority and still be right (in an absolute sense), simply by virtue of disagreeing.

Nor does the RCC's insistence on the pope's authority in fact mean that he has such authority. It is simply a teaching of that particular church, one which is not held commonly by other churches. Scripturally, the pope does not have such authority. The claim to authority is a tradition of that particular church.

I think the bigger issue here, is whether the Pope has that authority...

Is this the place for a Scripture study on that point? Not church tradition, but Scripture?

Dave

 

[beamishboy]

Let's look again at the language of 847:

""847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church . . ."

The exclusion is stated to apply to those, first of all, who "do not know Christ and his Church." Again, "do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church." Yes, Protestants DO know Christ, they DO know the Gospel of Christ. And they DO know of, know about, are familiar with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Christians generally DO KNOW the RCC. Many Protestants DO NOT recognize the RCC as 'Christ's church,' based on Scripture. Are you proposing some other meaning for the word 'know'? The catechism was translated into English by the RCC. The words used have common recognized meanings. Are you suggesting some OTHER meaning for 'know'?

Secondly, we have the qualifier, "through no fault of their own.' Meanning what? Please provide the RCC-endorsed explanation of this phrase, with a cite. For example, does study ABOUT the RCC and rejection of the RCC based upon that study, constitute 'fault'?



We are talking here about the RCC at the time of Unam Sanctam. That certainly was NOT the case at that time. The official teaching of the RCC at that time was that the RCC is INDEED the one, the only true Church, and that those with other beliefs, who did not submit to the pope, were excluded from salvation. Are you disputing that?

But aside from that, in regard to the 1997 catechism, the RCC STILL claims to be the only true Church. The Church now concedes that God may work today through faith communions outside the RCC, BUT that any knowledge, spiritual beneifts, etc., blessings which may be found in communions outside the RCC in fact "derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.from God." And, that all such is a call to Catholic unity, that is, to bring them into the Catholic fold. (paragraph 814)



That is NOT what the catechism states. Those who KNOW the gospel, those who KNOW the RCC but refuse to join or continue in it, do not have salvation.

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

The reference to 'Church' means here the Roman Catholic church. Do you dispute that? If so, please cite to authorized RCC publications, rather than private interpretation.



Nor does the RCC's insistence on the pope's authority in fact mean that he has such authority. It is simply a teaching of that particular church, one which is not held commonly by other churches. Scripturally, the pope does not have such authority. The claim to authority is a tradition of that particular church.



Is this the place for a Scripture study on that point? Not church tradition, but Scripture?

Dave

Wow, wow, wow, the beamishboy is most impressed with archierieus' knowledge, incisive debating skills and passion for truth. Further, your patience is most admirable and is exemplary to us all. Glory to God!

 

[Annolennar]

The exclusion is stated to apply to those, first of all, who "do not know Christ and his Church." Again, "do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church." Yes, Protestants DO know Christ, they DO know the Gospel of Christ. And they DO know of, know about, are familiar with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Christians generally DO KNOW the RCC. Many Protestants DO NOT recognize the RCC as 'Christ's church,' based on Scripture. Are you proposing some other meaning for the word 'know'? The catechism was translated into English by the RCC. The words used have common recognized meanings. Are you suggesting some OTHER meaning for 'know'?

You’re being pretty liberal with the word “know”. “DO know of, know about, are familiar with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church” does not logically lead to “DO KNOW the RCC”. A counter-example: I may know of Barack Obama, I may have read his books, and know what he says, but it is a ridiculous leap for me to say that because of such knowledge, that “I know Barack Obama” in any personal sense.

We are talking here about the RCC at the time of Unam Sanctam. That certainly was NOT the case at that time. The official teaching of the RCC at that time was that the RCC is INDEED the one, the only true Church, and that those with other beliefs, who did not submit to the pope, were excluded from salvation. Are you disputing that?

That’s still the teaching, but the Church is inclusionary, not exclusionary. To clarify, the Church, as the Body of Christ, includes all believers, regardless of their professed relationship to the “visible church”.

You can’t pick and choose context. Unam Sanctam itself was written to French Catholics in regards to issues with their king, Philip the Fair; and at the time that Unam Sanctam was written, there were no Protestant churches. To demand that the wording of a 14th century encyclical be 100% compatible with 20th century thought and 16th century issues makes about as much sense as Biblical literalism.

You might get somewhere with the Schism, but the Orthodox churches maintain apostolic succession and belief in the Eucharist; the Catholic Church describes the East and West as two lungs, breathing together. I would assume that the belief about the relationship to the pope is the same with them as with Protestant churches.

That is NOT what the catechism states.

Oh really? Like lionroar0, I love it when people tell us what we believe; particularly when it directly contradicts what we really do believe. From the Catechism (for the umpteenth time&#8230:

“All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

I’ll not post the many other paragraphs, as its been done several times before recently.

Nor does the RCC's insistence on the pope's authority in fact mean that he has such authority. It is simply a teaching of that particular church, one which is not held commonly by other churches. Scripturally, the pope does not have such authority. The claim to authority is a tradition of that particular church.

Speaking of official citation…

See Matthew 16, John 21, St. Cyprian, St. Iranaeus, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, St. Clement, St. Ignatius, etc… I could go on with more Scripture and Early Church Fathers.

But anyway, since the issue is what Catholic dogma is (not whether it is true), you really can’t use an argument that is contrary to Catholic dogma. See how non-sequitur that is?

Is this the place for a Scripture study on that point? Not church tradition, but Scripture?

You can’t have one without the other, as neither would exist in any recognizable form without the other; and putting divisions between the two is arbitrary and unnecessary – they point to the same truths.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Narnia,

You asked:

Can you explain what the OO model is?

It is the one that obtained in the early Church as expressed in the canons of the Council of Nicaea. Each partiarch presides over his bishops, and the Church is found where the bishop is. Should we have difficulties over any matter, our patriarchs and bishops will meet to discuss these things - again, as provided for in Nicaea.

But from the EO perspective, doesn't that mean that primacy need not be established in the NT between the apostles for the church to in effect implement the primacy of one bishop over another? And if it takes an ecumenical church council to effect such a change, how did a patriarchate come about in Moscow?

We take the view that the primacy accorded to Peter was one of honour, not of authority; that he was, as he calls himself, and elder among elders.

The Moscow patriarchate is something one would have to ask our EO brothers and sisters about.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

best of luck with your book and your educational aspirations. But a word to the wise, if you think you are going to King's College, Oxford, I suggest you do some geography homework, Oxford has no such college. I believe there is a university in the fenlands of East Anglia which has a college of that name; perhaps it is that one you hope to attend?

peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

best of luck with your book and your educational aspirations. But a word to the wise, if you think you are going to King's College, Oxford, I suggest you do some geography homework, Oxford has no such college. I believe there is a university in the fenlands of East Anglia which has a college of that name; perhaps it is that one you hope to attend?

peace,

Anglian

My dear Anglian,

Thanks for pointing out my error. Of course you knew I meant King's College, Cambridge. But please don't relegate the beamishboy to East Anglia. The beamishboy's theological degrees must be top-notch and surely only Oxbridge degrees will do.

Once my book is published, you will see in displayed in book shops all over the world The Definitive History of the Roman and Orthodox Churches - A Complete History of These Churches and How They have Departed from Apostolic Teachings by the Beamishboy, D Div (Cantab), MA (Theology) (Cantab), B. Th. (Cantab). That should look quite cool. Hehe.

 

[lionroar0]

But anyway, since the issue is what Catholic dogma is (not whether it is true), you really can’t use an argument that is contrary to Catholic dogma. See how non-sequitur that is?

And there it is. To further explicate this point with documentation.

That is correct. That excludes protestants. The statement is the relationship the CC has with non-christian religions.

​

Precisely. Protestants know the gospel, thus they DO fall under the so-called 'affirmation.(non sequitor)'

"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"

Protestants know the Gospel. The affirmation is not aimed at those that either know the Gospel or The Church.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

It is an assumption as opposed to a fact. It is a belief as opposed to a fact. Others believe that their church is 'Christ's true church.' The list is fairly long.

Define belief. Define fact and how it opposes belief.

It is also a matter of Catholic belief that Jesus Christ was resurrected. Is this a fact or a belief opposed to fact?

The Christian church was founded by Christ, prior to Pentecost, to evangelize. The Roman Catholic church came along some hundreds of years later. Its teachings are significantly different from those of the church Christ founded. It is not the same as the church Christ founded. It is, however, one particular denomination generally thought of for purposes of secular categorization as within the Christian communion.Dave

Please tell us when it was founded. I just wondering if it's one of the classics.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Partially. RC commentators on Unam Sanctam distinguish between the historical/political issues and the spiritual issues of salvation only by submission to the pope, which are affirmed to be timeless and universal.

Doctrines are not dogmas and doctrines can be further clarified and developed.

That, indeed, has been the historical position of the papacy. It is not the teaching of Scripture, however. I assume you are aware of that.Dave

I'm aware that you are way out line trying to tell me what is Scriptural and what isn't.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

You mean they would be hell-bound for believing it in the first place. To believe something that is patently untrue is wrong. To continue to believe it is obstinately wrong.

No he means if a person belives that the CC is the Church of Christ and then leaves the Church but still hold to this belive, then they maybe hell-bound.

As there is no salvation outside of the Church.

Peace

 

[beamishboy]

No he means if a person belives that the CC is the Church of Christ and then leaves the Church but still hold to this belive, then they maybe hell-bound.

As there is no salvation outside of the Church.

Peace

So, your beliefs are different from Narnia's. You believe that there is no salvation for those outside the RC church and so you believe there is no salvation for Protestants and Orthodox. That's precisely what we've been trying to establish but most of the RCs pretend that that's not their teaching even though the Unam Sanctam is as clear as daylight. Thanks for being honest.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

My dear Anglian,

Thanks for pointing out my error. Of course you knew I meant King's College, Cambridge. But please don't relegate the beamishboy to East Anglia. The beamishboy's theological degrees must be top-notch and surely only Oxbridge degrees will do.

Once my book is published, you will see in displayed in book shops all over the world The Definitive History of the Roman and Orthodox Churches - A Complete History of These Churches and How They have Departed from Apostolic Teachings by the Beamishboy, D Div (Cantab), MA (Theology) (Cantab), B. Th. (Cantab). That should look quite cool. Hehe.

Dearest to God Beamishboy,

I have a book I would like to suggest to you for historical reference. It gives a LOT of detail into the services of The Church.

http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Liturgy-New-Gregory-Dix/dp/0826479421 I think you will appreciate the author being from Oxford.

It's long and very deep. But I think you're just the person to read it and gain some things from it.

Best of luck.

Forgive me...

 

[MamaZ]

As there is no salvation outside of the Church.

This is not truth. For there is no salvatiout outside of Christ. The churc canot save one single soul.. Not even one.. Only Christ can save.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Thanks for that information about the Orthodox church. The beamishboy is writing a huge book called The Definitive History of the Roman and Orthodox Churches - A Complete History of These Churches and How They have Departed from Apostolic Teachings but I'm having trouble with exactly what stand the Orthodox church takes. Apparently there are many many DIFFERENT Oral Traditions. Thank God there is only one Bible. I suppose churches that depend only on that one reliable Bible have it good.

Thanks again for your insight into the Orthodox churches. I need as much input as I can get.

You are letting your mistaken ideas fill you with misinformation.

Which was and hopefully now will no longer be - the problem within the one Church [although schismed.]

See, its the idea that there is a difference that caused a break, and it will be knowledge that there is only cultural differences that will bring this ship back around.

I dont have the time to get out the microscope to explain it all, but let me give my finest comparison.

Just because the peeps of the world who were putting together the tower of babble no longer spoke the same language doesnt mean they were not all doing the same thing with the same intent in mind.

The problem was the fact they were NOT communicating properly.

Now see - the Bible shows us historical facts in addition to a foreshadowing.
IMHO - this simple lesson shows us that God allows us to 'think' we cannot communicate properly so therefore we should head off on our paths...[but He commanded we have faith anyway]
BUT the lesson was - the group was still working towards one goal - however even tho they allowed the confusion doesnt mean the same organization no longer existed.

Just some thots.

We are one Body with many Members. Want me to show all the verses where Paul uses the plural for Assemblies.

That was my point.
BUT - let me add a very important fact...

Paul did NOT say it was ok to believe seperately from what he taught...

Like the early NT churches, we believe that we are one body but many churches. We have Romans in the Bible but if you have the cheek to suggest those Romans were anything like the RCC, I'll roll on the floor laughing. They and the RCC are as different as chalk and cheese. Just read Romans and see for yourself.

AGAIN - some confusion...
There are not many Churches but ONE BODY.
One faith - one belief - one Body.

Didnt Paul say - is Christ's body divided?

Paul did not preach that Romans were different than the Ephesians. Nor did he say it was fine to have a different Tradition....

As for what was written to each Church ...put it this way - he wrote to each area according to the issues they were having in aligning themselves to the one teaching.

And so he admonished each area for the problems they faced...and counseled them on his directives for UNITY.

Mind you, in Rome the problems naturally were distinct from the Galatians, or from Jerusalem.
As diverse as the areas were, the issues were just as problematic to that region.
In Jerusalem the problem was with the Judiazers.
In Rome, the pagans and the former gods were stumbling blocks. In Galatians or Ephesians, or Corinthians...etc all of them faced a seperate challenge.

NONE of this however; means that the Churches all had seperate teachings...
There was ONE Church - all under the same Tradition of teaching from the Apostles - except all of them had different OBSTACLES to overcome to UNITE under the one set of teachings.

I hope this made sense, if not i will try again to elaborate.

 

[MamaZ]

The rock of our salvation is not Peter.. For Peter could not even save Himself..

 

[beamishboy]

Dearest to God Beamishboy,

I have a book I would like to suggest to you for historical reference. It gives a LOT of detail into the services of The Church.

http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Liturgy-New-Gregory-Dix/dp/0826479421 I think you will appreciate the author being from Oxford.

It's long and very deep. But I think you're just the person to read it and gain some things from it.

Best of luck.

Forgive me...

Dear OrthodoxyUSA,

Thanks very much for your recommendation. To be honest, I clicked on the link, half expecting (as some evil chap did in another forum) that it would lead me to a Barney comic book or something insulting but I was very pleased to see that you were not being condescending. That is indeed the sort of book that the beamishboy would love but unfortunately, the whole book is on nothing but liturgy.

What I'm really interested in are doctrines and how each doctrine comes about. For example, we know that in Marian theology, Mary was called Mother of God in about 400AD but ostensibly at that time, the focus was more on the divinity of Jesus, so some of the proponents assured us. Queen of Heaven came much later - I think it's 1000AD and that was followed by the ritual of "crowning Mary". Before that was the Immaculate Conception I think. Long after that came the Assumption.

Thanks anyway for your recommendation.

The Beamishboy, D. Div (Cantab), MA (Comparative Theology) (Cantab), B. Th. (Cantab); author of The Definitive History of the Roman and Orthodox Churches - A Complete History of These Churches and How They have Departed from Apostolic Teachings