Catag94 said:

---

So, to expound on the OP question, and in light of Jesus prayer in John 17:20-23, what are reaching your thoughts on the idea that Christian's of ALL rites should prioritize unity? It seems to me as I said before that there is an opportunity here, if not a responsibility for the church to work harder to this end. By "church" I'll go with CCC 751 (pic added).

And to more one claims, "The One True Church", perhaps the greater this responsibility. Perhaps that means finding a way to move to a more common ground.

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Is Papal infallibility one of these infallible traditions? What about transubstantiation?

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would the tradition of transubstantiation make the RCC/EO faith one of a continuationist, versus a cessationist? Or just not related to that topic? Maybe that is more of a protestant divide?

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would the tradition of transubstantiation make the RCC/EO faith one of a continuationist, versus a cessationist? Or just not related to that topic? Maybe that is more of a protestant divide?

---

I actually don't know what those mean

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Is Papal infallibility one of these infallible traditions? What about transubstantiation?

---

Transubstantiation the metaphysical argument of how something can look like something but be something else isn't infallible. The process that Transubstantiation tries to describe; how bread and wine turn into body and blood while still looking like bread and wine, is.

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Is Papal infallibility one of these infallible traditions? What about transubstantiation?

---

Transubstantiation the metaphysical argument of how something can look like something but be something else isn't infallible. The process that Transubstantiation tries to describe; how bread and wine turn into body and blood while still looking like bread and wine, is.

---

Is there a book somewhere there lists the infallible traditions? Similar to the Bible?

---

The Banned said:

---

There have been plenty of cross denominational talk through the past few decades. I'd say all sides are "trying" but we're starting very far apart so it's gonna take some time and spiritual help.

---

• There is one Church created by Jesus. (RCC Dogmas 137, 149, and 153)
• Membership in the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (RCC dogma 157)
• The Sacrament of the New Covenant are necessary for the salvation of mankind (RCC dogma 170)
• The Eucharist is a true Sacrament (of the new covenant) instituted by Christ. (RCC dogma 194)
• For people over the age of reason, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation (inferred by RCC dogma 196)
• Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Canon 750.2)
• The Catholic Church is the one true church
• Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith..... (Canon 751)
• Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. (CCC 838) - not able to receive the Eucharist

Quote:

---

The books in the Bible were letters, etc. that were widely circulated and acknowledged as Scripture early on. I assume First Clement wasn't like that.

I don't distinguish them because it's always been that way.

---

Zobel said:

---

No idea. But many of those numbers were not local to Jerusalem. That included people from all over who had gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimage for the feast.

Also, you never answered how you know valid books of scripture from spurious. Oops sorry saw you did:

Quote:

---

The books in the Bible were letters, etc. that were widely circulated and acknowledged as Scripture early on. I assume First Clement wasn't like that.

I don't distinguish them because it's always been that way.

---

So if it was always this way - which isn't true at all, but whatever - how do you accept scripture as a concrete reality but reject other things that have "always been this way"?

Because this kind of reads like - "the early church got *the most important thing right* when they identified scripture from not out of dozens and dozens of writings, but then screwed everything else up"

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So you believe in papal infallibility?

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Here is the INDEX...

What happens a lot, is that some take parts of the CCC out of context and run with it. The example above is a case in point in which the Magisterium (official teaching body) starts off with the affirmation from tradition, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" and then proceeds to break this down with scripture and 2000 years of history.

If you only have a fragment of the teaching you can interpret that to mean differently than it actually is taught.

---

Zobel said:

---

No, because that doesn't meet your criteria of "always been that way". Or as St Vincent put it a long time ago, "everywhere, always, by all"

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Keeping with the affirmation, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"- this was first written in the 3rd century about baptizing new members who were previously baptized by heretics. At the time it was decided that they needed to be baptized again as the previous baptism was not valid.

---

Zobel said:

---

You know, you say you don't troll, but every conversation and thread with you goes the exact same way.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Keeping with the affirmation, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"- this was first written in the 3rd century about baptizing new members who were previously baptized by heretics. At the time it was decided that they needed to be baptized again as the previous baptism was not valid.

---

I guess my hang up is similar to the theme of the circumcision of the heart, and not an outward act. Scripture leads me to believe Jesus is after my heart, but tradition tells me not so fast.

Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."

Romans 2:29
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

---

Zobel said:

---

What is a tradition?

---

Catag94 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Here is the INDEX...

What happens a lot, is that some take parts of the CCC out of context and run with it. The example above is a case in point in which the Magisterium (official teaching body) starts off with the affirmation from tradition, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" and then proceeds to break this down with scripture and 2000 years of history.

If you only have a fragment of the teaching you can interpret that to mean differently than it actually is taught.

---

Thanks.

What are your thoughts on how this differs from say those who heard the teachings of the Apostles, believed, were baptized (with water and received the Holy Spirit) and all in so doing, became part of the body of Christ, the Church? Serious question (not being snarky).
I know there is a lot to learn as one matures in the faith, but it seems the core fundamentals of the gospel are all that should be or are required to enter into it.

Now, the church has such an exhaustive list of teachings that she herself deems infallible and, one is a heretic if he obstinately doubts any of them.
It seems to me that this list should be no longer today than it was in say 100 BC. If it weren't, we may be surprised at how much Christians may be unified.

So, can you speak to my point about the responsibility of the church to seek a path for unity among Christians?

---

Zobel said:

---

That would be frustrating wouldn't it?

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Keeping with the affirmation, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"- this was first written in the 3rd century about baptizing new members who were previously baptized by heretics. At the time it was decided that they needed to be baptized again as the previous baptism was not valid.

---

I guess my hang up is similar to the theme of the circumcision of the heart, and not an outward act. Scripture leads me to believe Jesus is after my heart, but tradition tells me not so fast.

Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."

Romans 2:29
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

---

Jesus commanded baptism. Why does that mean He isn't also after your heart? Both/and, not either/or

---