light_bulb said:

---

"Do I think pope Francis is legitimately pope? 95% yes. I don't personally push the theory that he is not."

What's your 5% of unbelief?

---

I'm not as well read on the subject as some people are, but essentially the way he was voted in was shady. Some people claim it went against the rules of how it's supposed to operate, which is compelling enough to wonder, but not strong enough to get me on board with the theory.

Now, if he is an antipope, we do have a moment where the seat of Peter is empty. Is this a huge a problem? Not technically. Technically every time a pope dies the seat is empty. This would just be a long version of that. The problem isn't the emptiness, but what we do with all the things promulgated by Francis. So, while I dont think he's an antipope, I also really hope he isn't. I hope he's remembered as a pope that never FORMALLY taught anything wrong, said a bunch of stupid stuff and that's it.

Zobel said:

---

No, because a church is an assembly of people. Thats what the word means. What makes it a church is being gathered together with their bishop. The bishop, with the faithful, is the Catholic Church.

---

So, the Church referenced in Ephesians 5, is only "Catholics"?

The "Body of Christ" referenced as all believers in the scriptures, is only Catholics?

ETA:
Is that what Jesus said/meant in Mathew 16:18?

Catag94 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Curious where you're coming up with 5 or 6 denominations back then. It was under the impression the first real splits started in the 400s, which was after the creed was adopted.

---

Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism. Arianism was the reason for the council of Nicaea in the first place.

---

Do those really count as denominations? There were heretics. They were excommunicated or rehabilitated. The end (although it could take many years for that end).

I could be wrong but I think we saw heretics remain inside of the church whiling trying (and failing) to advance their heresy. I don't think we saw any real splinter groups running their own church's like we saw in the reformation. Again, could be wrong there

---

Correct. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics. Is this still the accepted view? The Roman Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. All others are heretics.

---

Yes and no. We're still the one church. The other churches were founded by heretics. Whether individuals inside of those churches here and now are capable of heresy is a different question.

In order to be capable of heresy as we use it here, you have to have been inside of the church, understood its teachings, and despite that full understanding, choose to say you know better.

So let's say we have a former Catholic in their youth that was maybe taken to mass once or twice a year. Catholic in name but it had no significance in their life and they never paid attention to the teachings. Along comes a knowledgeable evangelical that shows them how much God really does love them! They start going to an evangelical church and live their life for God. Heretic? I think we can all say no. Unaware of the full teaching of the church. Almost assuredly. Apart from the church in the manner in which the church defines? Probably not.

Contrast this with Luther. Ordained priest under the guidance of his local bishop, in communion with the Catholic Church. Luther comes to understand the faith is entirely different than what he was taught and assented to is his adult years, fully aware of his consent. He tells the church that his teachings are accurate and theirs are wrong. Heretic? Yes. Apart from the church? Yes.

The church a Protestant attends holds heretical views in differing degrees. If you're a Methodist (I think you said) you probably align closer with the Catholic Church than just about any other denomination outside of EO and maybe Anglican. But there are some differences. So how can you go to a church that holds some level of heretical views and not personally be a heretic? Personal knowledge of the difference, with a full and unbiased explanation of the Catholic views that keep you from joining, and a belligerent refusal to believe anyway. If that doesn't define you (and I would bet it doesn't define 99.5% of present day Protestants) then I don't think we can call you a heretic. All of those qualifiers have to be fully defined as well, but that's the shorthand way of typing it.

---

Well said.
Question, whose church is it anyway? Who established it? I'm sure we agree the answer is Jesus.
What would you say to the notion that all those who have received Jesus, believed in His name (John 1:12), and been baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16) are all those who make up His church, dare I say the holy, universal, and apostolic church He created for Himself?

---

I would say that they are in irregular union with the church. If the desire is to truly do things the right way, but they are influenced otherwise because of the theological splits created by the reformers 500 years ago, it may not be their "fault" they aren't a part of the church. This is where the Catholic Church leaves room for Christians in other denominations to go to heaven, but won't speak definitively on it one way or another. All we can say for certain is that we're all supposed to be together and we aren't.

Ok. So, if the Catholic Church (RCC and/or Orthodox) is the true church, then it's stands to reason that the responsibility or opportunity is there for the church to work to bring all believers together. No?
If true, and given the way the church was growing following Christ's ascension, perhaps some process can be devised short of OCI and conversion for that purpose.
Something to the effect of an Affidavit that documents:
-Baptism in the name of The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit
-Confirmation that one adheres to or believes the Creed
-Confirmation that one believes in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist .
-Confirmation one believes in the sacraments.

This list is already far greater than credentials required of say those friends and family of Cornelius at his home in Caesarea in Acts 10, or throughout Acts. According to that, people heard, believed in their hearts, received the Holy Spirit, and Peter recognized that if they received the Holy Spirit, no one could withhold baptism from them despite their being gentiles.

Peter recognized (following his vision from God) that if God shows no favoritism, or accepts/calls someone, he was in no position to deny them. He didn't require anything more of them.

I'd also argue that most of todays "Protestant" Christians are no so much influenced by the reformation fathers as they are by Christ, The Holy Spirit, and the Gospels. Are these not the blocks that built the Church in the beginning recorded in Acts?

Catag94 said:

---

Ok. So, if the Catholic Church (RCC and/or Orthodox) is the true church, then it's stands to reason that the responsibility or opportunity is there for the church to work to bring all believers together. No?
If true, and given the way the church was growing following Christ's ascension, perhaps some process can be devised short of OCI and conversion for that purpose.
Something to the effect of an Affidavit that documents:
-Baptism in the name of The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit
-Confirmation that one adheres to or believes the Creed
-Confirmation that one believes in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist .
-Confirmation one believes in the sacraments.

This list is already far greater than credentials required of say those friends and family of Cornelius at his home in Caesarea in Acts 10, or throughout Acts. According to that, people heard, believed in their hearts, received the Holy Spirit, and Peter recognized that if they received the Holy Spirit, no one could withhold baptism from them despite their being gentiles.

Peter recognized (following his vision from God) that if God shows no favoritism, or accepts/calls someone, he was in no position to deny them. He didn't require anything more of them.

---

Trying to get what you're driving at. I think you mean the Catholic Church should focus on these 4 things only as "qualifiers" so to speak? These 4 things and you're in the church?

Catag94 said:

---

I'd also argue that most of todays "Protestant" Christians are no so much influenced by the reformation fathers as they are by Christ, The Holy Spirit, and the Gospels. Are these not the blocks that built the Church in the beginning recorded in Acts?

---

Head on over the the faith alone thread and read my comments on monergism. It was very new theology that necessitated doctrines like total depravity, which led to double predestination, once saved always saved, etc. We're so close on what matters, but all the other stuff makes us look so different and makes reunion a monumental task.


I know most modern day Protestants view themselves as just reading the Bible and understanding, but there is a thick lens being used to read it, even when the reader is unaware of that lens.

Catag94 said:

---

I'd also argue that most of todays "Protestant" Christians are no so much influenced by the reformation fathers as they are by Christ, The Holy Spirit, and the Gospels. Are these not the blocks that built the Church in the beginning recorded in Acts?

---

Not sure how this is possible.

These weird gymnastics continue, where RCC and EO is good and true. Reformed, bad. Modern/progressive Protestantism that morphed from the reformation is now also kind of good and kind of true.

The Banned said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I'd also argue that most of todays "Protestant" Christians are no so much influenced by the reformation fathers as they are by Christ, The Holy Spirit, and the Gospels. Are these not the blocks that built the Church in the beginning recorded in Acts?

---

I know most modern day Protestants view themselves as just reading the Bible and understanding

---

This was the reformation in a nutshell, from their perspective at least

"Catholic" means according to the whole. The meaning is not the Latin church, but that where the bishop is, with his flock, is the church according to the whole. Complete, lacking nothing.

How can something be an assembly if it never assembles?

The Banned said:

---

Trying to get what you're driving at. I think you mean the Catholic Church should focus on these 4 things only as "qualifiers" so to speak? These 4 things and you're in the church?

---

Yes.
At least recognized them as called believers in Christ and commune with them. Allow them to receive the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist they already seek with understanding.
From there, the church may be surprised at the number who will then seek a more thorough education in the history for the church willingly through OCI etc. but, what matter most, they've already accepted and believe in Jesus. They are, I'd argue, member is in Christ's body in His view.

Zobel said:

---

A union to least common denominator beliefs will wind up being such a shallow faith it will be useless.

---

Agree 100%

Zobel said:

---

"Catholic" means according to the whole. The meaning is not the Latin church, but that where the bishop is, with his flock, is the church according to the whole. Complete, lacking nothing.

How can something be an assembly if it never assembles?

---

I would not suggest it never assemble. I fact, I believe we should assemble regularly for the reasons they did in the early church days.
And, as you likely know, I'm an example of one who assembles at Catholic Mass every week and on HDoO along with my Catholic wife. Sure, I was called by God through a Baptist church at 17 as He worked through another family (mine didn't attend a church). I answered/continue to answer that call and was baptized and I proclaim baptism with The Holy Spirit (which I believe is the baptism that matters most).

So, am I part of the universal (catholic) church?

Zobel said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I'd also argue that most of todays "Protestant" Christians are no so much influenced by the reformation fathers as they are by Christ, The Holy Spirit, and the Gospels. Are these not the blocks that built the Church in the beginning recorded in Acts?

---

They are -far- more influenced by modernism and modern philosophies. The clear evidence is that most of todays Protestants hold beliefs that match "suspiciously" close to modern secular philosophical and political beliefs over and against the teaching of Christ, the Gospels, the Apostles.

---

There is a lot of clear evidence that Catholics do too! I'm sure you can think of ample examples.

No, because you voluntarily abstain. I don't know why you don't, and I don't judge you for it. But you abstain from the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is where unity is found.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

This list is already far greater than credentials required of say those friends and family of Cornelius at his home in Caesarea in Acts 10, or throughout Acts. According to that, people heard, believed in their hearts, received the Holy Spirit, and Peter recognized that if they received the Holy Spirit, no one could withhold baptism from them despite their being gentiles.

---

The whole idea of sola scriptura has poisoned brains, it's like people think the only things that were spoken, taught, lived, happened, are the few words we have in the scriptures.

---

Sorry, not what reformed believes. It is that anything extra-Biblical should follow within the bounds of scripture.

If there is a church tradition that can be traced and verified as a likely and valid thing, I don't think it should be rejected.

I glean from the circles I stay in, that the very early church was very simplistic. And I speculate some of that sentiment is what drove some aspects of the reformation.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

A union to least common denominator beliefs will wind up being such a shallow faith it will be useless.

---

Agree 100%

---

So, all the Creed entails is "the LEAST common denominator"?

Catag94 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Trying to get what you're driving at. I think you mean the Catholic Church should focus on these 4 things only as "qualifiers" so to speak? These 4 things and you're in the church?

---

Yes.
At least recognized them as called believers in Christ and commune with them. Allow them to receive the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist they already seek with understanding.
From there, the church may be surprised at the number who will then seek a more thorough education in the history for the church willingly through OCI etc. but, what matter most, they've already accepted and believe in Jesus. They are, I'd argue, member is in Christ's body in His view.

---

Zobel hit the nail on the head. Catholic teaching doesn't say the people in your scenario aren't Christian or are necessarily outside of the body of Christ. But before we get to the Eucharist, take baptism? Why do we do it and what does it do? Is it a symbol? Does it impart grace? How necessary is it?

Something as simple as baptism can you get you a rash of different answers. So we can use those 4 points you mention as a sort of entrance qualification, but none of that addresses what comes after. What happens when you disagree with the rest of it? If we can disagree on baptism, why can't we disagree on the true presence, for example? What do we do with those people?

I spent about ten years away from the church, so I get exactly where you're coming from. I mentioned on another thread that I oscillate back and forth between highlighting our similarities and discussing our differences. But the fact of the matter is the differences remain because of the modern view on how to approach the faith. Like Zobel said, no one could have told the apostles that they completely disagree with their teachings and stuck around anyway. But that's where we are now and it requires a lot of unwinding.

So again, I think there are plenty of believers outside of the Catholic Church doing the very best they can with the presuppositions that they are working with. Even something as simple as having a deep bias against Catholicism since childhood due to upbringing can prevent someone from becoming Catholic later. I dated a girl in HS who had parents that said all Catholics go to hell. Can't exactly blame her for not looking at the Catholic Church with an open mind, but I don't doubt she was trying to follow Jesus.

Zobel said:

---

No, because you voluntarily abstain. I don't know why you don't, and I don't judge you for it. But you abstain from the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is where unity is found.

---

I don't abstain from the Eucharist. I just have not converted through OCIA. My wife is RC. If she were EO, I probably would have already converted. Which brings me to my point:
If RCC can view modern EO as being in communion with them, I'm not sure why a process like I suggested above is not possible.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

This list is already far greater than credentials required of say those friends and family of Cornelius at his home in Caesarea in Acts 10, or throughout Acts. According to that, people heard, believed in their hearts, received the Holy Spirit, and Peter recognized that if they received the Holy Spirit, no one could withhold baptism from them despite their being gentiles.

---

The whole idea of sola scriptura has poisoned brains, it's like people think the only things that were spoken, taught, lived, happened, are the few words we have in the scriptures.

---

Sorry, not what reformed believes. It is that anything extra-Biblical should follow within the bounds of scripture.

If there is a church tradition that can be traced and verified as a likely and valid thing, I don't think it should be rejected.

I glean from the circles I stay in, that the very early church was very simplistic. And I speculate some of that sentiment is what drove some aspects of the reformation.

---

But as we talked about on the other thread, the whole driver of reformed/monergistic doctrine would be viewed as extra-biblical and not within the bounds of scripture. The "bounds of scripture" can look very different from person to person because of what they bring to the table when they read it.

Catag94 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No, because you voluntarily abstain. I don't know why you don't, and I don't judge you for it. But you abstain from the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is where unity is found.

---

I don't abstain from the Eucharist. I just have not converted through OCIA. My wife is RC. If she were EO, I probably would have already converted. Which brings me to my point:
If RCC can view modern EO as being in communion with them, I'm not sure why a process like I suggested above is not possible.

---

The RCC and EO have two whole issues separating them. There was very near reunion in the 1400s. But that said, we are not in communion with each other. I think both sides are trying but it hasn't happened yet.

The Banned said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No, because you voluntarily abstain. I don't know why you don't, and I don't judge you for it. But you abstain from the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is where unity is found.

---

I don't abstain from the Eucharist. I just have not converted through OCIA. My wife is RC. If she were EO, I probably would have already converted. Which brings me to my point:
If RCC can view modern EO as being in communion with them, I'm not sure why a process like I suggested above is not possible.

---

The RCC and EO have two whole issues separating them. There was very near reunion in the 1400s. But that said, we are not in communion with each other. I think both sides are trying but it hasn't happened yet.

---

I more simply mean that an EO is able to receive the Eucharist in the RCC.

ETA: So they are more in communion than, say I and the RCC.

I'd also add that I think the difference are more than most think.

Would you agree with those listed in this link:

https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/differences-between-orthodox-and-catholic/

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I'd also argue that most of todays "Protestant" Christians are no so much influenced by the reformation fathers as they are by Christ, The Holy Spirit, and the Gospels. Are these not the blocks that built the Church in the beginning recorded in Acts?

---

I know most modern day Protestants view themselves as just reading the Bible and understanding

---

This was the reformation in a nutshell, from their perspective at least

---

Which is why there was no disagreement on how to deal with James 2, right?

I don't blame anyone for reading their Bible and trying to understand it. I did too. But even most of the Protestant apologists out there nowadays are warning people against bringing their own interpretation into it. It's simply not possible for everyone to read it and all of us come into alignment on what all of it means.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

This list is already far greater than credentials required of say those friends and family of Cornelius at his home in Caesarea in Acts 10, or throughout Acts. According to that, people heard, believed in their hearts, received the Holy Spirit, and Peter recognized that if they received the Holy Spirit, no one could withhold baptism from them despite their being gentiles.

---

The whole idea of sola scriptura has poisoned brains, it's like people think the only things that were spoken, taught, lived, happened, are the few words we have in the scriptures.

---

Sorry, not what reformed believes. It is that anything extra-Biblical should follow within the bounds of scripture.

If there is a church tradition that can be traced and verified as a likely and valid thing, I don't think it should be rejected.

I glean from the circles I stay in, that the very early church was very simplistic. And I speculate some of that sentiment is what drove some aspects of the reformation.

---

But as we talked about on the other thread, the whole driver of reformed/monergistic doctrine would be viewed as extra-biblical and not within the bounds of scripture.

---

That's like, your opinion, man.

Catag94 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No, because you voluntarily abstain. I don't know why you don't, and I don't judge you for it. But you abstain from the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is where unity is found.

---

I don't abstain from the Eucharist. I just have not converted through OCIA. My wife is RC. If she were EO, I probably would have already converted. Which brings me to my point:
If RCC can view modern EO as being in communion with them, I'm not sure why a process like I suggested above is not possible.

---

The RCC and EO have two whole issues separating them. There was very near reunion in the 1400s. But that said, we are not in communion with each other. I think both sides are trying but it hasn't happened yet.

---

I more simply mean that an EO is able to receive the Eucharist in the RCC.

ETA: So they are more in communion than, say I and the RCC.

I'd also add that I think the difference are more than most think.

Would you agree with those listed in this link:

https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/differences-between-orthodox-and-catholic/

---

Don't forget leavened / unleavened bread for the Eucharist.

"I'm not as well read on the subject as some people are, but essentially the way he was voted in was shady. Some people claim it went against the rules of how it's supposed to operate, which is compelling enough to wonder, but not strong enough to get me on board with the theory."

+++

Here this may help... from the book, "Benedict XVI Last Testament, In His Own Words" by Pete Seewald, c.2023

"The former Pope Benedict has claimed that his resignation in February was prompted by God, who told him to do it during a "mystical experience."


Breaking his silence for the first time since he became the first Pope to step down in 600 years, the 86-year-old reportedly said: "God told me to" when asked what had pushed him to retire to a secluded residence in the Vatican gardens.

Benedict denied he had been visited by an apparition or had heard God's voice, but said he had undergone a "mystical experience" during which God had inspired in him an "absolute desire" to dedicate his life to prayer rather than push on as Pope.

The German ex-pontiff's comments, which are said to have been made a few weeks ago, were reported by the Catholic news agency Zenit, which did not name the person Benedict had spoken to.

A senior Vatican source said the report was reliable. "The report seems credible. It accurately explains the spiritual process that brought Benedict to resign," he said.

Benedict said his mystical experience had lasted months, building his desire to create a direct and exclusive relationship with God.

Now, after witnessing the "charisma" of his successor, Pope Francis, Benedict said he understood to a greater extent how his stepping aside was the "will of God."

+++

Was there/Is there still a "gay lobby" in the Curia? I'm sure. That does not mean that Pope Benedict was forced to resigned so they could put their man in there. This is what some folks are spinning. THIS is what Benedict wrote about to clear up.

It won't be enough, because well meaning people are always looking for evil from without when in fact Jesus was clear about where evil comes. All of this hinders the mission and the mission is as great as ever. Wish we would stop this in-fighting and get to work.

I'm not talking about the forced removal of Benedict. I'm talking about a lobby of any kind being against the rules of a conclave and that the meetings pre-conclave may have been in violation.

Again, it's such a small possibility to me that it's not worth researching. You don't need to convince me he is pope because it would take a truck load of information to convince me he's not.

1. EO are not allowed to receive (to my knowledge) and their own church would be the ones saying they shouldn't. The RCC is open to it, but suggests they follow their own church's teaching on the matter. And if they want to go against their church's teaching on this, they should consider joining the Catholic Church.

I think any conversation with your local priest should sound similar. Your faith tradition does not believe in the true presence in the Eucharist in the way the Catholic Church defines it. If you are aligned with that church, you should follow its teachings. If you don't want to follow your church's teachings, then why not become Catholic?

2. There are several difference between EO and Catholics, yes. But to my understanding the only two standing in the way of reunion is papal infallibility (which goes along with how primacy should be defined) and the filioque. The filioque is the biggest issue because it was an action done assuming the papal primacy definition that the EO's object to.

Several eastern Catholic rights use leavened bread already. Not an issue.

The RCC and the orthodox are not in communion. The process for me and you are the same. If I wanted to take communion at the RCC I would have to leave my church and join theirs.

Sorry for not getting the details right - didn't mean anything by it other than - it isn't as if the RCC is telling anyone no they can't join. But you do have to join.

1) Thank you. I was unaware of the Orthodox prohibition of receiving in communities outside of the Orthodox Church. I was working off my understanding within the RCC.

2). That article is interesting in that it talks about all the differences sort of falling under one main philosophical fundamental. But, I get what you mean.

I think it's a few of the details where I find myself unwilling to convert to RCC as it would be disingenuous of me. But, that's not to say I disagree with any of Christ's or His disciples' teachings. In fact, if I were transported to Caesarea in front of Peter, I'd be part of his following for sure.

Unfortunately, those that followed Peter over the centuries have added additional required beliefs to be a par of what they say is the church founded on, if not by, Peter.
Today, those people in Cornelius's home would need to go through a course and profess belief in a few more things (some of which may be rejected by Peter himself) in order to become part of the church despite having clearly received the Holy Spirit.

Zobel, isn't it true that some Orthodox Churches are in communion with Rome?