BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,953
- 3,400
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
CATHOLIC BASHING THREAD TITLES
- Thread starter epostle1
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
ScottA
Well-Known Member
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,953
- 3,400
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Agreed, but you can't name one single bishop after the death of the last apostle. And you can't name one single, reputable Protestant historian of the last 50 years that agrees with your psychotic fantasies. Cowards don't post their sources of lies of this magnitude, or you dreamed up these lies because you are just another angry pope of your own denomination of one.
Again, where do you get this stuff? Parishes are owned and operated by the parishioners, not the Vatican.
If you really think there are 1.2 billion Catholics on the planet all because our leaders so smart, then you give them more credit than we do.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies:
#1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable.
13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | Living Bread Radio Network
Last edited by a moderator:
That is forum sadism.
CATHOLIC: Where did the word originate? It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.
It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.
It is totally biblical. It is in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.
Rom. 1:8….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATAnggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”
Acts 9:31 Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.
church throughout (Greek) = Kataholos.
Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8, Acts 9:31
(originated does not mean explicit)
The first known recorded use of the word after all the Bible was enscripturated is in St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D.,
"Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.
Written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD
Constantine was not born until 272AD, those who say the term came form him are bigoted revisionists.
"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.
If you left the historic Church with this nonsense, you weren't much of a Catholic.
Nor did the LCMS or WELS or LDS or UCC or most other denominations. But of course, the Orthodox would insist the RCC separated from it (but the RCC insists it is the other way around).
There was no RC Denomination in the first century. But if you could show me an Official Catechism of the distinctive RC Denomination from the First Century and show me that every word, every letter is IDENTICAL to my 1994 edition -nothing different, nothing added, the identical 2,865 points - then I'll yield that its teachings haven't changed, but you can't do that and that would only prove my point - that it's a denomination (non-denom churches don't have a Catechism for the denomination).
Now what any of this has to do with the OP is beyond me....
And how anything you posted shows that the RCC has a unity of NONE I just don't know. Maybe you could list for all all the non-Catholic denominations that agree with the RCC on all 2,865 points exactly as worded in my 1994 edition of the Catholic Catechism - and thus show the churches it has unity with, but we both know: that's zero. The MOST it has is current, official, denominational unity with ITSELF EXCLUSIVELY - and there is no denomination on the planet that can't say AT LEAST that much (and many, much more). Does that make the RC Denomination "bad?" Not necessarily (there are other denominations in the same boat), it just makes your comment wrong.
Back to the topic....
- Josiah[/QUOTE]
C.S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:
The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.
The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church's bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.
Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture ("progressive revelation"). Examples:
- doctrines of the afterlife,
- the Trinity,
- the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son),
- the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament),
- the equality of Jews and Gentiles,
- bodily resurrection,
- sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc.
In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions - not always so "biblical" - which preclude development for fear of "excess."
The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!
And books such as Barnabas and 1 and 2 Clement were considered Scripture by many at the same time (for example, the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus). Of the 27 New Testament books, 14 were not mentioned at all until around 200 A.D., including Acts, 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians.
On what grounds, then, can we receive the Canon today except on the authority of the Church in the 5th century? These facts cause insuperable problems for Protestantism and its guiding principle of "Scripture Alone," but are not a difficulty in the least for Catholics, who believe in Tradition, Church Authority, and development - all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical Canon.
It is plain silly (not to mention insufferably arrogant) to assert, as did Luther and especially Calvin, that the knowledge of what books constitute Scripture is attained simply by an intuitive and subjective inkling within each Spirit-filled person. If the early Church had such a difficult time determining what was and was not Scripture, how could Calvin 15 centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian?!
The Church is called the "Body" of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic "corruptions"!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.
Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too.
- The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325,
- and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.
- The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451.
Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today's Church shouldn't be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small "Catholic tree." It doesn't look like a Protestant "statue," doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, "diabolical" Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).
John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:
One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/authority/development-of-doctrine-by-dave-armstrong/
Last edited:
epistle1, I agree.
It's easy.
Just list for us all the other denominations that fully agree with every letter in the 2,865 points of my 1994 Official Catholic Catechism (no less, no more - every word the same). Just list all the OTHER denominations where that's the case, and we'll have the list of OTHER churches in which the CC is in doctrinal unity. Can't think of even one? Ah, my point.... so the claim about RCC "unity" is quite absurd, isn't it? Just one of the many pointless, irrelevant things a few Catholics keep parroting over and over and over that just isn't true. And we all know it. Which makes you wonder why they keep constantly parroting it?
Let's say Bob looks in the mirror. And states, "I agree with HIM! Well at this moment.... in the things that one in the mirror currently thinks is important to agree upon. I don't fully agree with any other but I do with the one I see in the mirror!!!" Is Bob expressing unity with anything but himself? Nope. Now, replace Bob with "The Roman Catholic Denomination" and you get the same conclusion.
Yea, the singular, individual RC Denomination is in unity with ITSELF (currently, denominationally, in those things that it itself alone currently holds is important for it itself to agree with it itself concerning). No one denies that. But of course, at least the same can be said of EVERY DENOMINATION on the planet - there is none worse than the RCC one since it is impossible to be in unity with fewer than none. The apologetic (expressed in this thread) is clearly WRONG (and pointless).
Yup, these same Catholics will also try to say that "Catholic doctrine never changes!" The point is never clear, but they say it nonetheless. Including in this thread.
But of course, this too is just not true - and everyone knows it - which makes one wonder why they keep parroting this point over and over and over again (never indicating what the POINT is of this falsehood). I know of no denomination on the planet that has changed its teachings more and more often. The Catholic Catechism on my desk dates all the way back to 1994, but I understand it's being replaced with a changed one. The RCC added a dogma in 1870, another in 1904. My Lutheran Catechism dates back to 1529 and not one letter, not one punctuation mark has been deleted, added or changed since 1529 (making it 465 years older than the RCC one, meaning it's been 489 years since it has changed and 24 years since the RCC one has changed - but the RC one being changed again as we speak). It's just wrong to say the RCC doesn't change its teachings..... Now do other denominations also? Yeah, some, sometimes. But it's just wrong to say the RC denomination doesn't.... probably more than any other. Now, you TRY to say that this change in doctrine is a GOOD thing ... okay.... then pray tell WHAT is the point of the constant, perpetual, continuous claim of some Catholics that "our doctrine never changes?" It's clearly isn't true (the opposite is) and you claim it's not even good (why aren't you correcting the Catholic here who stated the teachings of the RCC never change?).
Thank you for the conversation!
- Josiah
.
Last edited:
You have to reject "development of doctrine" because you haven't a clue what it means. To reject development of doctrine means you are forced to reject the development of the canon of scripture. Given your silly notions of changed doctrine, you have to prove inspired scripture also changed.
An Introduction to Development of Doctrine by Dave Armstrong ::
You wouldn't make the same ridiculous demands on Luther's Small Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Calvin's Catechism, The Evangelical Free Church Catechism, The School Catechism, 1904, was prepared by a "Conference of Members of the Reformed Churches in Scotland" , The Intermediate Catechism, the Presbyterian Church. But you only make silly demands on the Catholic Catechism (CCC) which says a lot about you.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is one of several. New editions does not mean a change in doctrine. It is a teaching tool for bishops to teach priests who teach us. It is to be viewed as an organic whole. Approved catechisms DO NOT INVENT DOCTRINES, they express what has always been believed, with clarifying and deeper understanding. It is 2000 years of accumulated answers to challenging heretics and liars which explains why it is so thick. It doesn't teach itself. Frankly, we could get along with no catechism at all.
In order to make your charge of changed doctrines stick, you have to take the essential truths of a current doctrine and prove they never existed in the beginning. Bellyaching your own straw man fallacy is meaningless, which you do without a shred of evidence.
Do I have to explain in detail what is meant by "essential truths"??? Protestants have them too.
Last edited:
epostle1,
The constantly parroted claim is that in the RC denomination, doctrine never changes.... the RC denomination has always taught what it still does.
CLEARLY you disagree with the claim, but rather than correct your fellow Catholics who make it (including in this thread), you SEEM to want to debate me on whether it's GOOD that this Catholic claim is false. I never raised the issue of whether changing theology is good or bad, only the perpetual claim of some Catholics that in the RC denomination, it never happens. I think you are debating the wrong poster here, my brother.
And you seem to be debating ME too on whether the RC denomination is in doctrinal unity with any but it itself alone (currently, denominationally, exclusively in those matters that it itself alone currently feels is good for it it itself to agree with it itself concerning). But you can't list any other denomination that it fully agrees with (because we all know there isn't even one).... Again, I never raised the issue of whether that's good or bad (nor has any Catholic here) only that that IS the case. And since you obviously can't disagree with me here, you don't. Maybe your "problem" is with the Catholics making this claim, not with me????
I'm not "bashing" your denomination.... I have posted much in it that I esteem.... I'm only rebutting some VERY popular, common, perpetual claims some Catholic parrot (including in this thread) that just are obviously wrong. I don't know why you are debating me since you seem to agree these claims are wrong.
Thank you for the conversation!
- Josiah
.
Last edited:
Misquoting me by inserting your words under my name is sneaky and dishonest.
Last edited:
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,953
- 3,400
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Please list for us the Catholic doctrines that have "changed" over the centuries.
Since NO other group "on the planet" has changed more doctrines - this should be an easy task for you.
If you can't do this - then you will have to admit that you lied . . .
If nothing changed, then your denomination would have EXACTLY the same words in its 1994 Catechism as in the 33 AD Catechism. But your denomination changes its catechism constantly... a changed one is in the works as we speak. Now, epostle1 says that the RCC' doctrine DOES constantly change - and sees that as a good thing - but you disagree. All you need to do is present to us a Catechism of your denomination from 33 AD and show it has exactly the same 2,865 points with the same wording as my 1994 one. Easy.
And your denomination agrees with NONE in doctrine, it has a unity of NONE in this. There is NO OTHER denomination that has the identical 2,865 points of the 1994 Catechism of the RC Denomination (nothing more, nothing less, nothing different); the RCC just agrees with ONE - the ONE it itself alone sees in the mirror - just it itself alone, exclusively. If Bob looks in the mirror at he himself alone... and says "I agree with HIM exclusively - officially anyway, currently, in those things that I myself right now think is good for myself to agree with myself concerning" would that prove he fully agrees with others? Of course not. Well, replace Bob with the RCC and it's the same thing. There is no other denomination on that planet that does not agree with IT ITSELF (in the same very limited sense that the RCC does) so the RCC is no better than any other denomination; indeed it is not even POSSIBLE to be in full agreement with less than no other.
Your claims are simply false. And irrelevant.
.
Josiah pounds the drum of anti-Catholic lies, challenges the unchanging essential truths of Catholic teaching, we expose the falsehoods, and then he accuses us of parroting claims. Josiah will never support his falsehoods with an example of a change in essential truths. Cowards dream up straw straw man fallacies and then run.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,953
- 3,400
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
For starters - name some of the doctrines that have "changed". I asked you to do that in my last post and you danced around it again. Since you claim that "no other" religious group has changed more doctrine - give me at least FIVE (5) doctrines that have changed.
This should be EASY for you . . .
Finally - since you find it relevant that no denomination has the exact same beliefs as the Catholic Church - can you give me any 2 Protestant denominations that have the EXACT SAME beliefs, doctrines, practices, etc??
This should be interesting . . .
PS - I'm STILL waiting for you to explain what "RC denomination" means and where you got this terminology from.
Last edited:
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Hello Josiah,
Thats really not true, as you should know...
The Church Catholic has thousands of bishops who represent thousands of particular churches made up of hundreds of millions of people who are doctrinally in agreement with one another...
Peace!
"...It is authentic Catholic doctrine and it rests on the unchangeable truth of our revealed faith. But it needs to be explained, and the explanation is a classic example of what we call development of doctrine.
By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.
Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm.
History of Eucharistic Adoration
Development does not equal change; no dictionary or encyclopedia in the world will say otherwise.
The Church produced the Bible, a church didn't pop out of a book.
Similarly, doctrines that were always there are explained in catechisms that reflect development. Catechisms don't create doctrines. The Bible is not to be read in the same way a Muslim reads the Qu'ran, and catechisms are not to be read the same way a sola scripturist reads the Bible.
By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.
Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm.
History of Eucharistic Adoration
Development does not equal change; no dictionary or encyclopedia in the world will say otherwise.
The Church produced the Bible, a church didn't pop out of a book.
Similarly, doctrines that were always there are explained in catechisms that reflect development. Catechisms don't create doctrines. The Bible is not to be read in the same way a Muslim reads the Qu'ran, and catechisms are not to be read the same way a sola scripturist reads the Bible.
If the Catholic Church is in full doctrinal agreement with OTHER denominations, please list them. The OTHER (non-Catholic) ones that accept the exact same 2,865 points of the 1994 Official Catechism - nothing more, nothing less, nothing different. Deominations with bishops who are in no way associated with the RCC Bishop in Rome or the other bishops who are.
IF your point is that the RCC agrees with ITSELF (officially, formally, denominationally, currently, in those limited areas where it itself alone currently declares are good for it itself to agree with it itself concerning) then I do not dispute that. I only point out the same is true of every other denomination, too. When self looks in the mirror at self, self sees self (no surprise there) - doesn't mean everyone else looks like self.
Philip James said:
Yes, and all the Districts of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod are officially in doctrinal agreement with all the other districts of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. But obviously, that doesn't mean that they are all in full doctrinal agreement with OTHER denominations (say the United Pentecostal Church or the Reformed Church of America or the Syrian Orthodox Church) even if there are several points in which they do agree - it's not full doctrinal agreement.
epostle1 said:
I never made the claim.... YOU DID. You are the one who insists that the RC denomination is in agreement with other denominations (but refuse to list even one such denomination). OF COURSE, there are many denominations that are in the same situation as the RC one - in full doctrinal unity with none. But friend, it is impossible for any other denomination to be WORSE in this regard than the RC one simply because it is impossible to be in unity with fewer than NONE. But the reality that the RCC also does not have "the exact same beliefs, doctrines, practices" as it itself has at this moment doesn't make it BETTER than any other denomination that ALSO does not have "the exact same beliefs, doctrines and practices" as the self same. This SHOULD be obvious.... but you evade it and simply keep parroting the silly, baseless, false claim.
If the teachings of the singular RC never change, then there was no need for a 1994 Catechism (or for it to currently to be changing), no need for Councils, no need for Papal Bulls... you'd have a 33 AD copy of the RC Catechism that would have EXACTLY the same 2,865 points of my 1994 one, nothing less, nothing more, nothing different. And as you know, you don't. You are just evading the obvious: RCC teachings are constantly changing. Again, is the RC denomination unique in that way? No (although my denomination's Catechism has not changed since 1529, which is earlier than 1994 - not one letter or punctuation mark has been added or deleted or changed since 1529). But again, it's not MY claim that MY denomination has the exact same views as it once did, that's YOUR claim - it's just baseless and false.
Thanks for the conversation....
- Josiah
.
Last edited:
The CC respects other Protestant denominational doctrines to keep to themselves.
No. Again, non Catholic denominations have their own doctrines and the CC minds her own business.
This is senseless gibberish.
Each non-Catholic denomination has its own doctrines. All 40,000 of them. They don't want to have anything to do with the Pope.
You're starting to catch on. What year did the CC start being a denomination according to your personalized definition? You have been asked this several times. Please spare me the anti-Catholic revisionist Constantine myths.
JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church
(oh my, it doesn't say "Roman Catholic Church" it must be a typo)
You should use the quote feature instead of making things up.
Again you should use the quote feature instead of making things up.
You are parroting the same nonsense. You ignore doctrinal development. You refuse to accept that development does not equal change. The separation of whole communities is in terms of degrees, it is not narrow, rigid Calvinistic dichotomies. You keep parroting the same lie and refuse to provide an example of a change in essential truths. So what do you do? You re-word "essential truths" into something I never said. It's a dishonest tactic and you do it constantly.
The first "catechism" was the Didache in 70 AD. Demanding the 1994 catechism be a carbon copy of the Didache is a whole new level of stupid.
The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a 1529 statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning.
Last edited:
Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church:
- "the written Word of God;
- the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity,
- with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit,
- as well as visible elements."274
Toward unity
820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
CCC - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3
footnotes:
256 LG 8.
257 Cf. DS 2888.
258 Vatican Council I, De Filius 3
S 3013.259 UR 2 § 5.
260 GS 78 § 3.
261 UR 2 § 2.
262 St. Clement Of Alexandria, Pæd. 1,6,42
G 8,300.263 LG 13 § 2.
264 Eph 4:3.
265 Col 3:14.
266 Cf. UR 2; LG 14; CIC, can. 205.
267 LG 8 § 2.
268 UR 3 § 5.
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1
G 13,732.272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
277 UR 4 § 3.
278 Jn 17:21; cf. Heb 7:25.
279 Cf. UR 1.
280 Cf. UR 6.
281 UR 7 § 3.
282 UR 8 § 1.
283 Cf. UR 9.
284 Cf. UR 10.
285 Cf. UR 4; 9; 11.
286 Cf. UR 12.
287 UR 5.
288 UR 24 § 2.
289 LG 39; Cf. Eph 5:25-26.
290 LG 12.
291 Acts 9:13; 1 Cor 6:1; 16:1.
292 SC 10.
293 UR 3 § 5.
294 LG 48.
295 LG 48 § 3.
296 LG 11 § 3.
297 LG 42.
298 St. Thérèse Of Lisieux, Autobiography of a Saint, tr. Ronald Knox (London: Harvill, 1958) 235.
299 LG 8 § 3; Cf. UR 3; 6; Heb 2:17; 726; 2 Cor 5:21.
300 Cf. 1 Jn 1:8-10.
301 Cf. Mt 13:24-30.
302 Paul VI, CPG § 19.
303 Cf. LG 40; 48-51.
304 John Paul II, CL 16,3.
305 CL 17, 3.
306 LG 65; cf. Eph 5:26-27.
307 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8,2:Apostolic Fathers,II/2,311.
308 UR 3; AG 6; Eph 1:22-23.
309 Cf. AG 4.
310 Cf. Mt 28:19.
311 LG 13 §§ 1-2; cf. Jn 11:52.
312 LG 26.
313 Cf. CD 11; CIC, cann. 368-369; CCEO, cann. 171,1; 178; 311,1; 312.
314 LG 23.
315 St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Ad Rom. 1,1:Apostolic Fathers,II/2,192; cf. LG 13.
316 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,3,2
G 7/1,849; Cf. Vatican Council IS 3057.317 St. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theo.
G 91:137-140.318 Paul VI, EN 62.
319 LG 23.
320 LG 13.
321 LG 14.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
325 LG 16.
326 Cf. NA 4.
327 Roman Missal, Good Friday 13:General Intercessions,VI.
328 Rom 9:4-5.
329 Rom 11:29.
330 LG 16; cf. NA 3.
331 NA 1.
332 LG 16; cf. NA 2; EN 53.
333 LG 16; cf. Rom 1:21, 25.
334 St. Augustine, Serm. 96,7,9
L 38,588; St. Ambrose, De virg. 18 118L 16,297B; cf. already 1 Pet 3:20-21.335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21
L 3,1169; De unit.L 4,509-536.336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.
339 AG 1; cf. Mt 16:15.
340 Mt 28:19-20.
341 AG 2.
342 Cf. John Paul II, RMiss 23.
343 2 Cor 5:14; cf. AA 6; RMiss 11.
344 1 Tim 2:4.
345 John Paul II, RMiss 21.
346 AG 5.
347 Tertullian, Apol. 50,13
L 1,603.348 GS 43 § 6.
349 LG 8 § 3; 15; AG 1 § 3; cf. RMiss 12-20.
350 LG 8 § 3.
351 GS 40 § 2.
352 Cf. RMiss 42 47.
353 AG 15 § 1.
354 Cf. RMiss 48-49.
355 Cf. RMiss 52-54.
356 AG 6 § 2.
357 Cf. RMiss 50.
358 UR 4 § 8.
359 Cf. RMiss 55.
360 AG 9.
361 AG 9.
362 Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14.
363 Cf. Mt 28:16-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:7-8; Gal 1:1; etc.
364 Cf. Acts 2:42.
365 Cf. 2 Tim 1:13-14.
366 AG 5.
367 Roman Missal, Preface of the Apostles I.
368 Mk 3:13-14.
369 Jn 20:21; cf. 13:20; 17:18.
370 Mt 10:40; cf. Lk 10:16.
371 Jn 5:19, 30; cf. Jn 15:5.
372 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 5:20; 1 Cor 4:1.
373 LG 20; cf. Mt 28:20.
374 LG 20; cf. Acts 20:28; St. Clement of Rome, Ad Cor. 42,44
G 1,291-300.375 LG 20 § 2.
376 LG 20 § 2.
377 AA 2.
378 AA 4; cf. Jn 15:5.
379 AA 3.
380 Rev 19:6.
381 Eph 1:4.
382 Rev 21:9.
383 Rev 21:10-11.
384 Rev 21:14.
(full context of the abbreviations are disclosed on another page, pontifications are easy, research is hard)
Last edited:
Strengthening Churches’ Commitment to the Poor and Vulnerable
(LWI) – During an audience with Pope Francis at the Vatican earlier today, leaders from The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) expressed gratitude for the partnership with the Roman Catholic Church that makes it possible for churches to strengthen their commitment to the poor and vulnerable.
LWF Delegation Meets Pope Francis
Josiah, are you sure you are a Lutheran?
Similar threads
