Setting Argumentive Things Aside

Not quite.

I believe that anyone who is validly baptized is in the Church of Christ. If they are not Catholic, then, then are not in perfect union with the Church, but they are in union with it.
No, that is not the teaching of the Church. If one receives a valid baptized as an infant, they are baptized into the Catholic Church and are members of the Church, although not visible members.

However, after they reach the age of reason and adhere to the heresies of the sect they are part of, they cease being members of the Catholic Church and are assumed to be members of whatever non-Catholic sect they belong to.

I believe that Protestant sects are not churches in the strict sense, but rather, ecclesial communities.

The Church of Christ subsists in but is larger than the visible boundaries of the RCC.
Have you ever read Lumen Gentium? It refers to non-Catholic sects as "churches." The new ecclesiology is a heresy and a contradiction of the traditional ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

There is but one Church of Christ, and it is the Roman Catholic Church. It is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation. They are members of the Roman Catholic Church who are validly baptized, and who have not been alienated from it by (a) the sin of heresy, (2) the sin of schism, (3) the censure of excommunication. Those who are validly baptized in non-Catholic sects are presumed by Church law to participate in and assent to the sins of heresy and or schism of their respective sects.

The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely and exclusively identified with the Mystical Body of Christ. They are one and the same thing. There is no distinction to make. The Mystical Body is the Roman Catholic Church considered as a comparison to Christ’s physical body, where He is the Head and we the members.

Absolute requirements for belonging to the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are (1) that one professes all the truths which are taught by the Church as pertaining to faith, and (2) that one be submitted to the Roman Pontiff as the visible head of the Church. If either of these conditions is failing, one cannot be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

If schismatic and non-Catholic churches who do not accept the papacy, the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, on the sacraments, on confession of sins, on the dogma of purgatory, who reject all the Marion dogmas and the intercession of the saints, who reject the Catholic priesthood, the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Church, but still are all part of this big tent Church of Christ, along with the Catholic Church and these sects are a "means of salvation", what to you regard as a "false ecumenism"?

Please explain what you consider "false ecumenism"?

Is it telling non-Catholics that Catholicism is vastly superior to and the most excellent path to Christ, which is exactly what "Bp." Barron told the Jew, Ben Shaprio? Again, it's like arguing of what flavor of ice cream is best.
I have never asserted that Protestant ecclesial sects are just as good as being Catholic. I have never asserted that the Church of Christ subsists in Protestant ecclesial communities. I have never asserted that Protestant ecclesial sects are equal to Catholicism.

Catholicism is vastly superior to and the most excellent path to Christ.
There is no such thing as being in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, there is no such thing as a "partial" Catholic. What you believe is heresy that has been condemned many times by past popes.

Pius IX Letter Jam vos omnes, September 13, 1868, to Protestants and other non-Catholics; "Now, anyone who wishes to examine with care and to meditate on the condition of the different religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church will easily be convinced that no one of these societies nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity."
 
Do you think that the differences between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals can be set aside?
This is an excellent question. I have been thinking about how we actually have much in common. In the end, Catholics believe all the essentials NC's believe. NCs have misconceptions about what the CC teaches. As for what I think can not be set aside as a catholic is Christs words to take and eat. Continue rejection of His words is not good.
 
This is an excellent question. I have been thinking about how we actually have much in common. In the end, Catholics believe all the essentials NC's believe. NCs have misconceptions about what the CC teaches. As for what I think can not be set aside as a catholic is Christs words to take and eat. Continue rejection of His words is not good.
Oh so no need to obey a pope and his cronies and their supposed infallible words. No we don't have misconceptions about what the RCC teaches at all, we can read what it teaches in the catechism and it is off.
 
Oh so no need to obey a pope and his cronies and their supposed infallible words. No we don't have misconceptions about what the RCC teaches at all, we can read what it teaches in the catechism and it is off.
Yes NCs do have misconceptions. People hate what they think is the CC. What do I have to obey that our current pope has said?
 
Yes NCs do have misconceptions. People hate what they think is the CC. What do I have to obey that our current pope has said?
That is more false assumptions by an RCC. Also that is more false claims that people hate what they think is the RCC, people don't hate but they know that the RCC is not what it claims to be. We are very much aware of what the RCC is and what it teaches and what it practices.
 
That is more false assumptions by an RCC. Also that is more false claims that people hate what they think is the RCC, people don't hate but they know that the RCC is not what it claims to be. We are very much aware of what the RCC is and what it teaches and what it practices.
NC's do have misconceptions. it is a fact.

What do I have to obey specifically that the 'popes' say I have to?
 
NC's do have misconceptions. it is a fact.

What do I have to obey specifically that the 'popes' say I have to?
Wrong it is a false claim that NRCC have misconceptions, it is a false fact.

First your present pope is not a good example to the flock. So far he hasn't made everything ex cathedra, but he has changed teachings on Judas and his buddy said anyone who said Judas was in hell is a heretic. Those are strong words, yet for centuries Judas being in Hell was the RC teaching.
 
No, that is not the teaching of the Church. If one receives a valid baptized as an infant, they are baptized into the Catholic Church and are members of the Church, although not visible members.
Oh, well, fine. You want to quibble over semantics. But I agree with the above, even though I didn't put it that way.
However, after they reach the age of reason and adhere to the heresies of the sect they are part of, they cease being members of the Catholic Church and are assumed to be members of whatever non-Catholic sect they belong to.
Assuming they are vincibly ignorant, yes. You see to want to assume that anyone who is baptized and has reached the age of reason--but is NOT Catholic, is vincibly ignorant.
Have you ever read Lumen Gentium? It refers to non-Catholic sects as "churches." The new ecclesiology is a heresy and a contradiction of the traditional ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
I have--a long time ago when I was in college. I am not sure it means "church" in the way that you are using the word.
There is but one Church of Christ, and it is the Roman Catholic Church. It is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation.
Fine.
They are members of the Roman Catholic Church who are validly baptized, and who have not been alienated from it by (a) the sin of heresy, (2) the sin of schism, (3) the censure of excommunication. Those who are validly baptized in non-Catholic sects are presumed by Church law to participate in and assent to the sins of heresy and or schism of their respective sects.
And this is where I disagree. On what basis should we assume or presume that they are participating in and assenting to the sins of heresy and schism? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt?
The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely and exclusively identified with the Mystical Body of Christ. They are one and the same thing. There is no distinction to make. The Mystical Body is the Roman Catholic Church considered as a comparison to Christ’s physical body, where He is the Head and we the members.
Fine.
Absolute requirements for belonging to the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are (1) that one professes all the truths which are taught by the Church as pertaining to faith, and (2) that one be submitted to the Roman Pontiff as the visible head of the Church. If either of these conditions is failing, one cannot be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
If one or more of those conditions are not met and the person is fully aware of their duty, yes. The difference between you and I is that you want to assume the worst about validly baptized non-Catholics and I assume the best.
If schismatic and non-Catholic churches who do not accept the papacy, the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, on the sacraments, on confession of sins, on the dogma of purgatory, who reject all the Marion dogmas and the intercession of the saints, who reject the Catholic priesthood, the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Church, but still are all part of this big tent Church of Christ, along with the Catholic Church and these sects are a "means of salvation", what to you regard as a "false ecumenism"?
They aren't in the Church if they are VINCIBLY ignorant.
Please explain what you consider "false ecumenism"?
Asked and answered.
Is it telling non-Catholics that Catholicism is vastly superior to and the most excellent path to Christ, which is exactly what "Bp." Barron told the Jew, Ben Shaprio? Again, it's like arguing of what flavor of ice cream is best.
I watched that interview. Baron misspoke. As a bishop, Baron is one of the better ones.
There is no such thing as being in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, there is no such thing as a "partial" Catholic. What you believe is heresy that has been condemned many times by past popes.
Fine. One is either in union with the Church or they aren't. I am talking about the VISIBLE EXPRESSION OF THIS UNITY. Protestants are in union with the Church (assuming they are invincibly ignorant) though their union is not perfectly expressed.
Pius IX Letter Jam vos omnes, September 13, 1868, to Protestants and other non-Catholics; "Now, anyone who wishes to examine with care and to meditate on the condition of the different religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church will easily be convinced that no one of these societies nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity."
Fine. But the validly baptized in them may be members of the Church.
 
Because it teaches another gospel than the apostles taught. Your religion is accursed!
What "Gospel" do you think the apostles taught?

The Gospel of TULIP or not? Infant baptism? What is the nature of the presence of God in the Last Supper? What is the purpose of the Last Supper? What Gospel do you subscribe to on these issues and how do you know that the Gospel you profess, as to some other Protestant who disagrees is the true Gospel?
 
Oh, well, fine. You want to quibble over semantics. But I agree with the above, even though I didn't put it that way.

Assuming they are vincibly ignorant, yes. You see to want to assume that anyone who is baptized and has reached the age of reason--but is NOT Catholic, is vincibly ignorant.
Invincible ignorance, if it is truly invincible and cannot be overcome, is not a means of salvation.
I have--a long time ago when I was in college. I am not sure it means "church" in the way that you are using the word.
It refers to non-Catholic sects as "particular churches."
And this is where I disagree. On what basis should we assume or presume that they are participating in and assenting to the sins of heresy and schism? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt?
Because this is what the Church teaches, not that that means anything to you. If you see someone that is a Lutheran going to a Lutheran church and participating in all the Lutheran services, do you assume they are a Catholic?
If one or more of those conditions are not met and the person is fully aware of their duty, yes. The difference between you and I is that you want to assume the worst about validly baptized non-Catholics and I assume the best.

They aren't in the Church if they are VINCIBLY ignorant.
Nowhere in Lumen Gentium is invincible ignorance mentioned. You are making things up as you go along. Lumen Gentium created a new, heretical ecclesiology that contradicted the traditional Catholic ecclesiology in which schismatic and non-Catholic sects are now part of the big tent "Church of Christ" and these sects are now "particular churches" which in themselves, are a "means of salvation."

This is declared in Unitatis Redintegratio #3: "The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."

Unitatis Redintegratio
states that non-Catholic "churches", in themselves, are a "means of salvation." This is blatant heresy.

Asked and answered.
I must have missed that part. Would you please repeat what you consider to be false ecumenism. Would it be participating in prayer meetings where the Catholic Church is placed on equal footing with, say, a Voodoo witch doctor, or participating in pagan ceremonies? Maybe participating in idolatry?
I watched that interview. Baron misspoke. As a bishop, Baron is one of the better ones.
He is heretic, a religious indifferentist. Actually, since he denies Christ is necessary for salvation, he's probably an apostate, like your "pope."
Fine. One is either in union with the Church or they aren't. I am talking about the VISIBLE EXPRESSION OF THIS UNITY. Protestants are in union with the Church (assuming they are invincibly ignorant) though their union is not perfectly expressed.
You can't assume anyone is invincibly ignorant. You've got it exactly backwards. Christ founded His Church and the sacraments for the salvation of souls. The Church teaches explicitly that no one can be saved outside of the Church founded by Christ and guided by His Vicar on earth.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Fine. But the validly baptized in them may be members of the Church.
The Church assumes that those in non-Catholic sects, at some point after reaching the age of reason, adhere to the heresies of the sects they are in. If a person is a Balptist and attends Baptist services, I don't assume he's a Catholic.

Pope Pius XII defined requirements for membership in the Church in Mystici Corporis Christi: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
 
Invincible ignorance, if it is truly invincible and cannot be overcome, is not a means of salvation.
Who judges whether that invincible ignorance can be overcome? That's right: GOD, not YOU, or for that matter any pope, no matter how obscure, is the ultimate judge of that.
It refers to non-Catholic sects as "particular churches."
It has been a long time since I read the document.
Because this is what the Church teaches, not that that means anything to you. If you see someone that is a Lutheran going to a Lutheran church and participating in all the Lutheran services, do you assume they are a Catholic?
Since I am not the judge, jury, and executioner, God is, therefore YES, I assume they are Catholic.
Nowhere in Lumen Gentium is invincible ignorance mentioned.
So?
You are making things up as you go along. Lumen Gentium created a new, heretical ecclesiology that contradicted the traditional Catholic ecclesiology in which schismatic and non-Catholic sects are now part of the big tent "Church of Christ" and these sects are now "particular churches" which in themselves, are a "means of salvation."
Do those churches have a valid baptism? Yes or no? If yes, there is the means of salvation.
This is declared in Unitatis Redintegratio #3: "The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."
What is the problem with this? Do they have a valid baptism or not?
Unitatis Redintegratio states that non-Catholic "churches", in themselves, are a "means of salvation." This is blatant heresy.
If they have a valid baptism, how are they NOT?
I must have missed that part. Would you please repeat what you consider to be false ecumenism. Would it be participating in prayer meetings where the Catholic Church is placed on equal footing with, say, a Voodoo witch doctor, or participating in pagan ceremonies? Maybe participating in idolatry?
How many times do I have to tell you that I am not a cheerleader for Pope Francis?
He is heretic, a religious indifferentist. Actually, since he denies Christ is necessary for salvation, he's probably an apostate, like your "pope."
Pope Francis clearly is not the sharpest tack in the drawer when it comes to theology. Pope Francis has certainly done and said many dubious things. That being said, I would not consider him a Formal Heretic.
You can't assume anyone is invincibly ignorant. You've got it exactly backwards. Christ founded His Church and the sacraments for the salvation of souls. The Church teaches explicitly that no one can be saved outside of the Church founded by Christ and guided by His Vicar on earth.
Sigh...

When did God appoint you the judge of the human heart? I might have missed it.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

The Church assumes that those in non-Catholic sects, at some point after reaching the age of reason, adhere to the heresies of the sects they are in. If a person is a Balptist and attends Baptist services, I don't assume he's a Catholic.
Again, when did God appoint you the judge of the human heart. I must have missed that. Even the Church has never claimed to be the judge of the heart. The Church judges only what she can see, not what is unseen.
Pope Pius XII defined requirements for membership in the Church in Mystici Corporis Christi: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
All fine. The difference between me and you? I judge what can be seen, not what is unseen.

How grand it must be to be you, however-- you have abilities we mere mortals can only dream of possessing--in the ability to see the human heart.

Can you read minds too?
 
What "Gospel" do you think the apostles taught?

The Gospel of TULIP or not?
"TULIP" isn't a "Gospel", it's just another "theology" - a mixture of truth and error.
Infant baptism?
Paedobaptism, other than providing good photo-ops, and a dress-up opportunity is totally WORTHLESS spiritually. Baptism is what a born again Christian does as a testimony of their life change.
What is the nature of the presence of God in the Last Supper?
It's done as a rememberance of what Jesus did on the cross.
What is the purpose of the Last Supper?
Just a final get-together before Jesus was to be murdered. A time of some instruction, since the disciples DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE about what was going to happen, or what it meant. Understanding would come 3 day later in the upper room.
What Gospel do you subscribe to
The "Gospel" is very simple: God HAS PROVIDED (in Jesus) that which He promised in Gen 3:15. simple as that. Roman Catholicism complicates its simplicity with all their pageantry, theological requirements and useless ceremonies.
 
"TULIP" isn't a "Gospel", it's just another "theology" - a mixture of truth and error.

Paedobaptism, other than providing good photo-ops, and a dress-up opportunity is totally WORTHLESS spiritually. Baptism is what a born again Christian does as a testimony of their life change.

It's done as a rememberance of what Jesus did on the cross.

Just a final get-together before Jesus was to be murdered. A time of some instruction, since the disciples DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE about what was going to happen, or what it meant. Understanding would come 3 day later in the upper room.

The "Gospel" is very simple: God HAS PROVIDED (in Jesus) that which He promised in Gen 3:15. simple as that. Roman Catholicism complicates its simplicity with all their pageantry, theological requirements and useless ceremonies.
You have hit the nail on the head once again.
 
Back
Top