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.”
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.
“There is no absolute guarantee that in the future they will be the same party that believes in the same conservative philosophy.”
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.
“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.”
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.
“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.
***********************
Unfortunately, I don't have the Oxford English Dictionary. I did my best to Google this, but couldn't find any real support for the above, although I do not doubt that it may well be so.
What I did find was that "Roman" and "Orthodox" were used when the east-west split occurred, and it is clear that "Roman Catholic" is intended by some even today to be an insult to Catholics. Do you have any more information on this?
Excellent post, btw.
I will have to chop of certain portions of your response as it is getting long. I will separate them into different posts as a lot of them relate to different ideas.
YOU WROTE:
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.
How are they sects ? You DEFINE them as sects but Christians who adhere to scripture and follow the Lord cannot be called sects by virtue of adherence to scripture. They are and should be considered part of the communion of saints regardless of what people like YOU think.
And the next question to ask is this — what is Orthodox Christianity ? It has to be what SCRIPTURE teaches, not what people like you say.
Also, how would you know what Patrick would have known ? Have you spoken to him lately ?
YOU SAID :
Sola scriptura and sola fide are Protestant doctrines. If you believe in them then you are a Protestant. Period.
Uhhh, I believe in scripture and faith, but I also believe that the church fathers from the time of the apostles have a lot of teachings that are useful we can learn from. In what way is that protestant ? That is simply adhering to what the CATHOLIC ( as opposed to the Roman version ) church traditionally taught.
YOU SAID :
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.
What you call anarchrnistic I call SCRIPTURAL. I don’t believe in pluralism either, I believe in communion of saints but ONLY WITHIN THE FAITH.
Yes there is ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH, but it is MOST DEFINITELY NOT LIMITED TO YOUR DENOMINATION OR THE CHURCH YOU GO TO.
I have more say on the rest of your post. Watch this space.
We have all the time in the world for this.
Continued
YOU SAID :
Those who are not Catholic are not Catholic.
I agree, but our contention is who holds the title of CATHOLIC. You insist that only those who belong to your church can hold it. I contend that scripture and ancient tradition DENY THIS VIEW.
YOU SAID
You are not Catholic.
Yes, you’ve said this several times, but saying it does not make it so. Show me from scripture why...
YOU SAID:
You cannot be in the universal Church and be in a sect. A sect is the opposite of the universal Church.
But I do not belong to a sect, I belong to the CATHOLIC church by virtue of belief in Christ and obedience to His word. Those are HIS TEACHINGS and HIS WORD. NOT YOURS.
YOU SAID:
Since I am Catholic (as was St. Patrick
Yes, as am I ( despite your denial ).
YOU SAID:
I need not make any distinction between Catholic and the artifical Protestant construct “Roman Catholicism”.
It is not an artificial reconstruction, it is SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION. YOU ARE THE ONE GOING AGAINST SCRIPTURE ( which you claim to believe, not me ).
YOU SAID ( ACTUALLY REPEAT) :
I am Catholic. So was St. Patrick.
I’m glad to hear that. Welcome to the church that I belong to ( I hope ).
Continued
YOU SAID
That was not my claim. My claim is that we use the same language and could communicate while you could not.
And my question was — If I mastered Latin better than you could, would it make my claim better than yours ?
You have not answered the above question.
YOU SAID:
He is of my Church and worshipped much as I do
Well, I worship the same person Patrick does. What’s your point ? Abraham worshipped GOd but did not speak Latin, that makes his worship of God less acceptable ? Where in God’s word does it say that one must speak a certain language to lay claim to His acceptance ?
YOU SAID :
while you know nothing of his worship and worship in a way and manner completely foreign to him.
Your definition of acceptable worship to God is this — You must worship by using the Latin language. With that, you have just rejected every single believer in the Old and New Testament who do not speak Latin, and all based on what ? Your own definition, not scripture ( which was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the original ).
YOU SAID:
No, but he is ours nonetheless.
Oh I see, repetition seems to be your style of argument. If that is so, I can also repeat, He is ours as well.
YOU SAID:
No, you must simply leave behind heresy and schism and becoma Catholic.
But why ? I have never left the Catholic Church ( the church of Christ ). I adhere to every single doctrine taught by Christ’s apostles in scripture.
If I denied scriptural doctrine, you might have a point, but you don’t. You simply say it without showing it.
YOU SAID:
Nope. Again, you must simply leave behind heresy and schism and becoma Catholic.
Well then I don’t have to do anything, I don’t even have to “become” Catholic as I already am by virtue of adherence to what Christ taught.
YOU SAID:
All logical things are apparently a non-issue for you.
The Latin issue is logical ? How ?
You have not even shown how speaking Latin makes you closer to God. You seem to claim to be closer to God than Moses himself ( who did not speak Latin ). That’s logical ? I don’t think so.
TO BE CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST....
CONTINUED
YOU SAID :
I have no reason to believe you will recognize the truth.
Actually I am now wondering whether or not you are interested in the truth. I pleased, nay demanded with you to show me from Scripture ( which you claim to believe ) how I am wrong and thus far, all I get are the same repetitions ( as the responses you give below and above have shown ). That’s recognizing the truth ? No you are AVOIDING the truth ( because Christ said — MY WORD IS TRUTH ).
YOU SAID :
You are making the mistake of anachronistically reading Protestant pluralism back into scriptures. Sorry, but there was only the Catholic Church.
I am making the correct understanding of what scripture teaches. There is ONLY ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I agree, and it is NOT LIMITED to the one you go to.
And that is NOT PLURALISM. Why ? because scripture tells us that he who does not believe does not have life ( Christ’s words again ). So, you can be a member of the Roman CAtholic Church yet NOT BELIEVE ( and I know many who don’t ). That’s not pluralism, that’s recognizing what Christ taught ? He is my authority, what’s yours ?
YOU SAID:
It was about the Catholic Church and not your sect.
Yes it is, but it is NOT JUST LIMITED to YOUR SECT ( since you like to use that word, I’ll use it ).
YOU SAID:
Actually it does.
No it DOES NOT. If you want, we can do this over and over again. I don’t mind at all.
YOU SAID:
And you still don’t qualify.
Yes I do, on the basis of scripture, not on the basis of the statement you made. What you say is nothing, what scripture says is truth.
YOU SAID :
No, it is a Catholic approved translation.
And approved by the Roman Magistrate. So, it is still a ROMAN CATHOLIC approved translation. And you have not even commented on what I said.
YOU SAID :
He was speaking to Catholics in all his letters. It didn’t need to be said.
Uh huh, He was speaking to Christians in Galatia, who are by definition, members of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BY VIRTUE OF FAITH AND BELIEF AND OBEDIENCE. Since, I meet these requirements, He is speaking to me too.
And oh yeah, I know what your response will be since it has been very obvious after 3 or 4 rounds of this exchange. You are going to repeat your “no you are not” schitck. Well, OK, if you want to play this game and not quote scripture ( since I highly doubt your knowledge of it ), I will just say this “YES I AM” to every one of your “NO YOU’RE NOT”. If you want to play this game, I’ll indulge you until the moderator closes this thread.
YOU SAID:
That is not celibacy.
We seem to be having a new definition of celibacy here. To be celibate is to abstain from sex. How is my understanding wrong ?
YOU SAID:
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.
Of course you can choose to be celibate if you want to, but that is NOT a COMMAND in Scripture. St. Paul himself very clearly taught that He chose to be celibate but his brother Cephas ( St. Peter ) was married. Peter did not serve the Lord any less by being married.
YOU SAID:
Because most men were NEW Christians and already married. St. Paul was not married. And neither was Jesus.
Uh huh, but Mary and Joseph were married, were they any less servants of God ?
Moses, Abraham, St. Peter, were ALL MARRIED. How is that wrong ?
If Paul did not wish married people to serve as Bishops than why did he not tell Timothy to NOT CHOOSE those so called new Christians who were married to be Bishops ? Also, you neglect to look at the text, these people were NOT NEW CHRISTIANS. They were to be ordained because they were MATURE IN THEIR FAITH, not infants in the faith.
Your understanding is clearly unscriptural.
YOU SAID:
In generations to come those who were raised as Christians were expected to be unmarried when they entered the priesthood.
And that is most definitely *NOT* in adherence to scriptural teaching and church tradition.
That was an innovation that came much later centuries after the first apostles.
YOU SAID:
Yet St. Patrick was unmarried as missionaries were.
Yet, his grandfather was a priest and NOT CELIBATE and sired eventually Patrick. So, in what way does celibacy make you a member of the Catholic Church and not being celibate not ?
YOU SAID:
He believed in celibacy.
I DO TOO. BUT IT IS A CHOICE, NOT A SCRIPTURAL COMMAND. If you believe that it would be best to serve God by not marrying, Good for you. But the married person is not any less effective in his service.
YOU SAID:
He was a slave and then a churchman. He was celibate.
And what follows ? He belongs to you alone ? How does the argument follow ?