Replies

YOU WROTE:

“So you claim. At this point I have no reason to believe your claim. What Church or sect do you attend?”

I happen to attend an Evangelical Church today. But then when I go overseas or to another state, I attend any church that I believe is faithful to God’s word and truly believes and obeys the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Christ.

How is that, by your definition, OUTSIDE the communion ?

YOU WROTE :

No. The communion of saints is a specifically Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. Protestants, for instance, do not believe in the communion of saints. They believe in a specifically protestanized version of it. They do not believe, for instance, that there is actual communion between the saints in heaven and those on earth. If someone does not believe in communion between saints, then he doesn’t believe in the communion of saints. It’s just that simple.

Well, you seem to be defining what Protestants believe for protestants. But I am not protestant as I don’t protest against what you believe in ( as long as it is based on what is SOUND Biblical Doctrine ).

You seem to be defining communion outside of Biblical definition and that’s where I see the problem. The communion of saints is all people who believe in Christ crucified and risen from the dead, regardless of denomination or practice. It is our expression of the belief that God wants us to worship, pray, and receive Holy Communion with other believers, instead of just by ourselves. It is NOT EXCLUSIVE to those who are in the ROMAN Catholic or Greek Orhtodox Church.

YOU SAID:

He was a GOP member. To now say his beliefs transcend the party is to strech the lines of the analogy you yourself chose. When you are defeated with your own analogy you change the analogy.

Really ? I’d like for you to show me how in light of the fact that HIS BELIEFS was precedent over the party he belonged to.

YOU SAID:
And thus my point still holds no matter what. The GOP is still not the Democrat party. Period.

And how does that make your point hold ? If the GOP were to abandon conservative principles and became just like the Democratic party, would Reagan still be a GOP member ? In light of what he did ( LEAVE his former party ), I would argue that we WOULD NOT.

YOU SAID:
They are different organizations and have differing philosophies and history. Also, conservatism is still a different thing from liberalism. You are proving my point either way.

No I am not. Let me modify that by saying that are different organizations AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

There is no absolute guarantee that in the future they will be the same party that believes in the same conservative philosophy.

If the Democratic party suddenly became conservative and the GOP became liberal, I would say that Reagan would switch parties again and I would not blame him for that.

CONSERVATISM analogizes to ADHERENCE TO SCRIPTURE, not MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION.

YOU SAID:
The organization counts because it is from God.

Not if the organization abandons its belief in God, or if the organization does not conform to God’s word. It counts in so far as it is FAITHFUL to God’s word.

YOU SAID:
Belief does indeed count, but no one can claim fully correct belief in Christ and Christianity and yet reject what Christ sent into the world - the Church. That’s one of the reasons why the Church is called Christ’s body.

Precisely my point — Christ church STANDS. But then your problem is you are narrowly defining membership in His church to ROMAN CATHOLICISM. I don’t and I don’t believe that scripture attests to that. Christ’s church is composed of those who TRULY BELIEVE in Him and OBEY Him.

Which means that there are those who claim to be Roman Catholic or Evangelical or what not who might be within the earthly organization but NOT in the Heavenly organization.
What counts is Christ’s TRUE CHURCH. “THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU” says the Lord Himself.

Hence, lets’ put it this way :

* You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and also a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH )

* You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church but NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).

* You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and also be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ). I know you disagree with this but that’s what I believe scripture teaches.

* You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).

Note in the above what is important — BEING A MEMBER OF CHRIST’s CHURCH, not being a member of one organization. What counts is what is IN YOUR HEART.

What is in your heart MANIFESTS ITSELF in the earthly organization that the world sees, not vice versa.

YOU SAID:
Because he was Catholic and so are we. The faith is not merely a belief in Jesus. The millions who share the faith with St. Patrick are all Catholic.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again but fail to tell me what the word — CATHOLIC means. You keep equating the ROMAN Catholic Church to
the UNIVERSAL Catholic Church. That is NOT correct. Patrick was who he was and the church was what it was then. I don’t take what the Roman Catholic claims
as its own to be SOLELY its own. Patrick is for the ages and for every believer everywhere BY VIRTUE of our shared faith.

YOU SAID:
He was a Catholic - that’s what the Christians in the Roman world were.

The Christians WERE Catholic ( as in members of Christ’s universal church by virtue of faith), I will admit, but ROMAN ? As in Christians everywhere adhering to the Bishop of Rome as their SUPREME head being superior in position to all other Bishops everywhere in the Roman world ? I don’t think history and scripture attests to that.

YOU SAID:
Catholic. He wasn’t from Rome and neither am I. But we are from the same Church and are both Catholic.

Yes, and so am I , and so are those who believe and follow Jesus Christ REGARDLESS of whether they are members of the Roman Catholic Church or not. THAT
WAS MY POINT. If that is your point also, I don’t see where we differ.

YOU SAID:
No. First of all, I’m not and have never been a “Roman Catholic”. Neither was he. He was Catholic and so am I. Period. Also, to truly be a fully faithful follower of Christ, one must belong to His Church which He sent into the world. Membership in a later sect was not what He intended.

And how does one belong to His Church ? Scripture tells us that all who believe in Him and Follow Him ARE members of His Church. Which makes me and millions of
others ( who are not members of the Roman Cathlic Church ) part of His Catholic church too. In what sense then does St. Patrick belong solely to you ?

YOU SAID:
Actually scripture backs the Catholic Church. St. Patrick was Catholic and so am I.

Well, I’d like for you to show me from scripture where it backs that view ( specifically that the Roman Catholic Church IS the sole equivalent of the Church of Christ ).

“I would say that Patrick is CATHOLIC in the real sense of the word — he, like millions of us, are members of Christ’s UNIVERSAL ( AKA CATHOLIC, not ROMAN ) church.”

YOU SAID:
I am assuming that being a Catholic is being a Catholic. And I am correct in my assumption.

Yes you are with one proviso — You do not reject those who are NOT members of the Roman Catholic Church as being part of the CATHOLIC ( AKA UNIVERSAL ) Church of Christ.

YOU SAID:
A Catholic is still a Catholic.

Yes, as long as you give a distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic ( as in Universal ).
The two are NOT EXACTLY the same. One can be baptized into the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of the Catholic ( universal ) church by
virtue of NON-BELIEF or PERSONAL ABANDONMENT of the faith

YOU SAID:
He believed in the priesthood. Do you?

Yes, the Bible teaches us about the Priesthood of all believers. St. Peter calls the Christians everywhere in his epistle to Christians scattered everywhere then : “ A CHOSEN PEOPLE, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD”
So yes, I do.

YOU SAID:
He believed in the episcopacy. Do you?

Yes I do. But I do not believe that it is limited to the Episcopacy of the ROMAN version.

YOU SAID:
He believed in consecrations? Do you?

Yes I do. Christians should consecrate their lives to Jesus Christ. How can one call Him Lord and not do that ?

YOU SAID:
He believed in celibacy. Do you?

Celibacy as in not having sex outside marriage ? Of course.

But I do not believe that Clergy who marry are disobeying God’s word. St. Paul himself advises Timothy ( the Bishop to Ephesus ) to consecrate Bishops who among other qualifications are HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE.

History tells us that Patrick was British by birth, the son of a town councillor-deacon and GRANDSON OF A PRIEST. NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS GRANDFATHER BEING A PRIEST AND MARRYING. THAT’s BIBLICALLY ACCEPTABLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.

YOU SAID:
Actually Vatican II reaffirmed the primacy of place of Latin. Apparently you didn’t know that.

I know that, but Vatican II OPENED the door to non-Latin worship. They do not condemn this.

MOST masses today are NON-LATIN and for good reason -— it would be better for people to worship in a language they understand.

As for Latin being superior, well the next question is WHY ?
Where in God’s word does it tell us that Latin is superior, given that most people during the times of the early apostles spoke Koine Greek AND Latin
and given that the New Testament was originally written in Greek not Latin?

YOU SAID:
St. Patrick didn’t know English. I can’t believe I have to tell you that.

My point is this -— you claim that you can speak to him in Latin. My response is — SO WHAT ?

That makes Him your own solely because he and you speak Latin ?

Does that mean that in order for me to claim Patrick as mine, I have to learn Latin too ? What if I did and mastered the language better than you, That makes Patrick more MINE than yours ?

Remember this — you brought the issue of Latin up, not me. For me, this is and should be a non-issue.

YOU SAID:
St. Patrick was. I am. You aren’t.

Which brings us back to the same question — WHY NOT ? Because you said so ? What you say is nothing, what
scripture teaches is what we should adhere to. Show me
from scripture that only you are and I am not.

YOU SAID:
That was about Catholics, not Protestants. None existed and scriptural references to the Church did not include them.

Where does it say that it was about ROMAN Catholics ALONE and NOT those who are NOT in the Roman Church but DO BELIEVE ?

It doesn’t say that at all.

YOU SAID:
I have no reason to believe you qualify.

Well, I am glad that you aren’t the authority as to who qualifies or not. God’s word is.

YOU SAID:
It’s not a “Roman Catholic” translation.

I was quoting from the New Jerusalem Bible. It IS a Roman Catholic approved translation of the New Testament.

YOU SAID:
Also, St. Paul said nothing about Protestants in Galatians 3. Period.

And he said nothing about ROMAN (emphasis) Catholics either. He did emphasize BELIEF, FAITH, OBEDIENCE. These aren’t the sole virtues that ROMAN Cathilics have.

You wrote:

“I happen to attend an Evangelical Church today. But then when I go overseas or to another state, I attend any church that I believe is faithful to God’s word and truly believes and obeys the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Christ.
How is that, by your definition, OUTSIDE the communion ?”

It was never in the communion of saints. Evangelical sects are sects. Period. They all deny the communion of saints as understood by orthodox Christians. They deny it as St. Patrick would have known it.

“Well, you seem to be defining what Protestants believe for protestants. But I am not protestant as I don’t protest against what you believe in ( as long as it is based on what is SOUND Biblical Doctrine ).”

Sola scriptura and sola fide are Protestant doctrines. If you believe in them then you are a Protestant. Period.

“You seem to be defining communion outside of Biblical definition and that’s where I see the problem. The communion of saints is all people who believe in Christ crucified and risen from the dead, regardless of denomination or practice. It is our expression of the belief that God wants us to worship, pray, and receive Holy Communion with other believers, instead of just by ourselves. It is NOT EXCLUSIVE to those who are in the ROMAN Catholic or Greek Orhtodox Church.”

Actually it is exclusive. You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.

“Really ? I’d like for you to show me how in light of the fact that HIS BELIEFS was precedent over the party he belonged to.”

He was GOP. He was not a Democrat. If you have difficulty understanding that he was not a member of both parties at once then there is no hope for you intellectually. One cannot be a Catholic and a Protestant at the same time.

“And how does that make your point hold ? If the GOP were to abandon conservative principles and became just like the Democratic party, would Reagan still be a GOP member ? In light of what he did ( LEAVE his former party ), I would argue that we WOULD NOT.”

Again, he was GOP. He was not a Democrat. If you have difficulty understanding that he was not a member of both parties at once then there is no hope for you intellectually. One cannot be a Catholic and a Protestant at the same time.

“No I am not. Let me modify that by saying that are different organizations AT THIS POINT IN TIME.”

“There is no absolute guarantee that in the future they will be the same party that believes in the same conservative philosophy.”

“If the Democratic party suddenly became conservative and the GOP became liberal, I would say that Reagan would switch parties again and I would not blame him for that.
CONSERVATISM analogizes to ADHERENCE TO SCRIPTURE, not MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION.”

“Not if the organization abandons its belief in God, or if the organization does not conform to God’s word. It counts in so far as it is FAITHFUL to God’s word.”

God’s Church is always faithful because it is God’s faithful.

“Precisely my point — Christ church STANDS. But then your problem is you are narrowly defining membership in His church to ROMAN CATHOLICISM.”

I have never done so. The Church is Catholic. I have never defined it as “Roman Catholic.”

“I don’t and I don’t believe that scripture attests to that. Christ’s church is composed of those who TRULY BELIEVE in Him and OBEY Him.”

When the NT was written there was only the Catholic Church.

“Which means that there are those who claim to be Roman Catholic or Evangelical or what not who might be within the earthly organization but NOT in the Heavenly organization.
What counts is Christ’s TRUE CHURCH. “THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU” says the Lord Himself.”

When the NT was written there was only the Catholic Church.

“You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and also a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH )”

Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He only established ONE.

“You may be a member of the Roman Catholic Church but NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).”

Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He only established ONE.

“You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and also be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ). I know you disagree with this but that’s what I believe scripture teaches.”

Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He only established ONE.

“You may be a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of Christ’s Church ( THE CHURCH ).”

Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He only established ONE.

“Note in the above what is important — BEING A MEMBER OF CHRIST’s CHURCH, not being a member of one organization. What counts is what is IN YOUR HEART.”

He only established ONE. Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church.

“What is in your heart MANIFESTS ITSELF in the earthly organization that the world sees, not vice versa.”

Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church. He died to empower it to furter the mission given to Him by the Father. The Church manifests Christ’s grace through the faithful Christian.

“You keep repeating the same thing over and over again but fail to tell me what the word — CATHOLIC means. You keep equating the ROMAN Catholic Church to
the UNIVERSAL Catholic Church. That is NOT correct. Patrick was who he was and the church was what it was then. I don’t take what the Roman Catholic claims
as its own to be SOLELY its own. Patrick is for the ages and for every believer everywhere BY VIRTUE of our shared faith.”

St. Patrick was Catholic. He and I are members of the same Church. You are a member of a sect. If you don’t know what the Catholic Church is then that’s your problem.

“The Christians WERE Catholic ( as in members of Christ’s universal church by virtue of faith), I will admit, but ROMAN ? As in Christians everywhere adhering to the Bishop of Rome as their SUPREME head being superior in position to all other Bishops everywhere in the Roman world ? I don’t think history and scripture attests to that.”

St. Patrick was Catholic. He was not “Roman Catholic” and neither am I. “Roman Catholic” is a pejorative invented by Protestants in the 16th century. Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.

“Yes, and so am I , and so are those who believe and follow Jesus Christ REGARDLESS of whether they are members of the Roman Catholic Church or not. THAT
WAS MY POINT. If that is your point also, I don’t see where we differ.”

You are in a sect. St. Peter was not. I am not. You are. That is where we differ. St. Patrick had the fullness of faith. So do I. You do not. That’s where we differ.

“And how does one belong to His Church ? Scripture tells us that all who believe in Him and Follow Him ARE members of His Church. Which makes me and millions of
others ( who are not members of the Roman Cathlic Church ) part of His Catholic church too. In what sense then does St. Patrick belong solely to you ?”

You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.

“Well, I’d like for you to show me from scripture where it backs that view ( specifically that the Roman Catholic Church IS the sole equivalent of the Church of Christ ).”

I am not “Roman Catholic.” I am Catholic. So was St. Patrick.

“Yes you are with one proviso — You do not reject those who are NOT members of the Roman Catholic Church as being part of the CATHOLIC ( AKA UNIVERSAL ) Church of Christ.”

Those who are not Catholic are not Catholic. You are not Catholic. You cannot be in the universal Church and be in a sect. A sect is the opposite of the universal Church.

“Yes, as long as you give a distinction between Roman Catholic and Catholic ( as in Universal ).”

Since I am Catholic (as was St. Patrick) I need not make any distinction between Catholic and the artifical Protestant construct “Roman Catholicism”.

“The two are NOT EXACTLY the same. One can be baptized into the Roman Catholic Church and NOT be a member of the Catholic ( universal ) church by
virtue of NON-BELIEF or PERSONAL ABANDONMENT of the faith”

I am Catholic. So was St. Patrick.

“Yes, the Bible teaches us about the Priesthood of all believers. St. Peter calls the Christians everywhere in his epistle to Christians scattered everywhere then : “ A CHOSEN PEOPLE, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD”
So yes, I do.”

No, you do not. The priesthood of the people is not the priesthood of the ordained ministers of the Church. St. Patrick was ordained.

“Yes I do. But I do not believe that it is limited to the Episcopacy of the ROMAN version.”

You do not believe in the episcopacy as St. Patrick did. He believed it to be passed down from the Apostles. He believed it to be an ordained ministry.

“Yes I do. Christians should consecrate their lives to Jesus Christ. How can one call Him Lord and not do that ?”

You have not done it as St. Patrick did. He was consecrated specifically as a bishop in the Catholic Church which meant he possessed authority over the sacraments you do not believe in.

“Celibacy as in not having sex outside marriage ? Of course.”

That is not celibacy. Celibacy is choosing not to marry for a purpose serving God. St. Patrick would understand it since it was common in his age. You clearly do not understand it.

“But I do not believe that Clergy who marry are disobeying God’s word. St. Paul himself advises Timothy ( the Bishop to Ephesus ) to consecrate Bishops who among other qualifications are HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE.”

Because most men were NEW Christians and already married. St. Paul was not married. And neither was Jesus. In generations to come those who were raised as Christians were expected to be unmarried when they entered the priesthood.

“History tells us that Patrick was British by birth, the son of a town councillor-deacon and GRANDSON OF A PRIEST. NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS GRANDFATHER BEING A PRIEST AND MARRYING. THAT’s BIBLICALLY ACCEPTABLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.”

Yet St. Patrick was unmarried as missionaries were. He believed in celibacy. He was a slave and then a churchman. He was celibate.

“I know that, but Vatican II OPENED the door to non-Latin worship. They do not condemn this.”

Vatican II did not “open the door” to vernacular worship. It always existed.

“MOST masses today are NON-LATIN and for good reason -— it would be better for people to worship in a language they understand.”

They were never prevented from worshipping in the vernacular on their own or in groups. The liturgical use of language was best kept - as the resurgence of the Latin Mass is proving.

“As for Latin being superior, well the next question is WHY ?”

Who claimed it was superior?

“Where in God’s word does it tell us that Latin is superior, given that most people during the times of the early apostles spoke Koine Greek AND Latin
and given that the New Testament was originally written in Greek not Latin?”

Your point is moot since no one claimed what you falsely assert.

“My point is this -— you claim that you can speak to him in Latin. My response is — SO WHAT ?”

That was not my claim. My claim is that we use the same language and could communicate while you could not. He is of my Church and worshipped much as I do while you know nothing of his worship and worship in a way and manner completely foreign to him.

“That makes Him your own solely because he and you speak Latin ?”

No, but he is ours nonetheless.

“Does that mean that in order for me to claim Patrick as mine, I have to learn Latin too ?”

No, you must simply leave behind heresy and schism and becoma Catholic.

“What if I did and mastered the language better than you, That makes Patrick more MINE than yours ?”

Nope. Again, you must simply leave behind heresy and schism and becoma Catholic.

“Remember this — you brought the issue of Latin up, not me. For me, this is and should be a non-issue.”

All logical things are apparently a non-issue for you.

“Which brings us back to the same question — WHY NOT ?”

Because you are a sect member. You do not possess the faith.

“Because you said so ?”

Nope. Because it is simply that way.

“What you say is nothing, what
scripture teaches is what we should adhere to. Show me
from scripture that only you are and I am not.”

I have no reason to believe you will recognize the truth. You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.

“Where does it say that it was about ROMAN Catholics ALONE and NOT those who are NOT in the Roman Church but DO BELIEVE ?”

It was about the Catholic Church and not your sect.

“It doesn’t say that at all.”

Actually it does.

“Well, I am glad that you aren’t the authority as to who qualifies or not. God’s word is.”

And you still don’t qualify.

“I was quoting from the New Jerusalem Bible. It IS a Roman Catholic approved translation of the New Testament.”

No, it is a Catholic approved translation.

“And he said nothing about ROMAN (emphasis) Catholics either. He did emphasize BELIEF, FAITH, OBEDIENCE. These aren’t the sole virtues that ROMAN Cathilics have.”

He was speaking to Catholics in all his letters. It didn’t need to be said.